SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 4030

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
GIAN CHAND – Appellant
Versus
PSPTCL AND OTHERS – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-28627-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 17.02.2026 Gian Chand ....Petitioner Versus Punjab State Power Transmission Corporation Limited and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. H.K. Brinda, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Gurneet Sagoo, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the action of respondents of withdrawing increment granted to the petitioner in May, 2013 on account of promotion of petitioner as Lineman (Class III post) after taking and accepting option dated 10.07.2013 and non-grant of regular annual increment due in July every year and increment on completion of 23 years of service i.e. 23rd year time-bound promotional scale on the pretext that the petitioner has not appeared and cleared the departmental examination. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to restore the increment granted on promotion after accepting option on 10.07.2013 without date on the pretext that the date will be filled as beneficial to the petitioner and annual increment due in July every year after 2013 and 23rd year time bound promotional scale and fix the pay of the petitioner and determine and pay the arrears with interest @ 18%

per annum from due date till its payment.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was selected and appointed on work-charge basis in the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board (now Punjab State Power Corporation Limited) on 12.09.1978. The petitioner was transferred from time to time and was regularized on 11.07.1988 as ALM and thereafter, promoted to the post of Lineman on 14.05.2013. The primary grievance of the petitioner is with regard to denial of 23 years time bound promotional scale. He further submits that the petitioner completed 23 years of regular service on 10.07.2011 as discernible from Annexure P-2. The petitioner represented to respondent/Corporation for grant of 23 years time bound promotional scale but the said benefit was neither extended to the petitioner or any reason was communicated to him for denying the same till his retirement on 30.04.2018. The petitioner, thereafter, approached this Court by filing CWP-27810-2019, and the said petition was disposed of on 27.11.2024 (Annexure P-5). In purported compliance, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation and respondent No.2 without considering the law cited by the petitioner and Instructions issued by Government of Punjab on 05.10.2012, declined the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure P-6). The petitioner again approached this Court by filing CWP-10747-2025 and the said petition was also disposed of on 21.04.2025 and the petitioner once again made a detailed representation in compliance of the direction issued by this Court. However, the respondent No.1 again passed a speaking order and committed illegality justifying the withdrawal of increment granted to the petitioner. It was observed in the speaking order dated 26.06.2025 that the petitioner was promoted as Lineman on 14.05.2013 and he was asked to submit the option to take the increment on promotion or with annual increment which was submitted by the petitioner on 10.07.2013 and promotional increment was allowed to him with annual increment. However, the time bound promotional scale increment was withdrew from the petitioner on the ground that he has not cleared the departmental examination. The petitioner is a Class IV employee and he was never put to notice regarding the schedule of the examination or the implication of Regulation requiring clearance of departmental examination.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents refers to Para 3 of the reply and submits that the petitioner has exercised his option for time bound

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top