JUDGMENT :

NAMIT KUMAR, J. 

1. On the last date of hearing i.e. 17.11.2025, the case was adjourned on the request of counsel for the petitioner. Today, the case has been called twice, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has not appeared.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 12.08.2024 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No.3, and order dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure P-2), passed by respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has been deprived of promotion to the post of Kanungo despite being senior and eligible, and for issuance of directions to the respondents to promote the petitioner w.e.f. 12.08.2024, with all consequential benefits including seniority and pay fixation. Further, a writ in the nature of mandamus has been sought for directing the respondents to decide the representation dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-3) in a time bound manner.

3. The brief facts, as have been pleaded in the present petition, are that the petitioner is serving as a Revenue Patwari under the administrative control of the District Collector, Sangrur, and is presently posted in Halqa Kheri Chahlan, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur. Vide office order dated 12.08.2024 (Annexure P-1), respondent No.3 issued promotion orders of several Revenue Patwaris to the post of Kanungo, in compliance with the directions of the Special Chief Secretary-cum-Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, contained in letter dated 23.07.2024. The said government communication conferred one-time relaxation under Rule 20 of the Punjab Kanungo (Class-III) Service Rules, 1994, to permit district-wise promotions of eligible Patwaris pending finalization of the State-level seniority list. The petitioner, being fully qualified and senior, stood at serial No.414 in the district seniority list, clearly falling within the zone of consideration for promotion. However, the petitioner was unjustly denied promotion, whereas several juniors were promoted to the higher post. The only ground assigned for denying promotion to the petitioner was that his two annual increments had been stopped ‘with future effect’, vide order dated 24.04.2024, under Rule 5(iv) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970, and whereas the punishment given to the petitioner, vide order dated 24.04.2024, was stoppage of two annual increments ‘without future effect’. Since the petitioner had been denied promotion on erroneous and untenable premises, therefore, he preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, which was registered as appeal No.139/VMS. The said appeal, however, came to be dismissed, vide order dated 01.10.2024. The concluding para of order dated 01.10.2024 reads thus:-

“5) After hearing both the parties and considering the facts on record, I have come to the conclusion that in addition to this appeal, appeals have been filed in this office by Sh. Rajwinder Singh, Patwari (Appellant) against the three different orders passed by Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur in Order No.127/SK dated 01.08.2023, Order No.6/SK dated 23.01.2024 and Order No.66/SK dated 19.04.2024, in which Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur had stopped the appellant’s one annual increment (without future effect), two annual increments (without future effect) and two annual increments (without future effect), respectively, which have already been separately dismissed by this office. The last order No.66/SK dated 19.04.2024, which is End. No.978-82/SK/NSK dated 24.04.2024 has been issued by Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur and as per that order the annual increments of the appellant has stopped without future effect, the effect of which is up to the year 2026, the date of his annual promotion due to 01.11.2026. Therefore, the order No.125/SK dated 12.08.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, through which the appellant was not promoted due to the stoppage of his annual increments