HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Decided on 30.01.2026 ****

Tek Chand Jain ... Petitioner VS.

State of Haryana & Ors. ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL ****

Present: Mr. Tapan Kumar Yadav, Advocate for Mr. Jai Veer Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG Haryana ****

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

(1). The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 05.01.2001 issued on 08.01.2001 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure P4) to the extent it declines the benefit of service rendered by him in the office of Excise and Taxation Commissioner from 27.12.1973 to 08.07.1974 and assign him seniority by counting that service.

(2). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana on a substantive post of Clerk and joined his duties on 27.12.1973 in the Excise and Taxation Department, Chandigarh. It is submitted that the request for transfer made by him on 07.06.1974 on ground to look after his ailing father and the same was declined by respondent No.2, however, later on he was transferred to Rewari by the Department at their own on 05.07.1974. He was thereafter promoted as Assistant vide order dated 06.05.1997.

(3). It is further submitted that the petitioner made several requests for assigning him seniority in the head office at Chandigarh to which the petitioner even submitted his objections before finalization of the seniority of District Clerical Cadre, on 17.10.2000 (Annexure P3). However, respondent No.2 vide order dated 05/08.01.2001 (Annexure P4) declined to accede to the request of the petitioner for giving similar treatment of benefit of service rendered in the head office at Chandigarh as was given in case of Anand Singh Dahiya. He pointed out that Anand Singh Dahiya joined as Clerk in Advocate General, Haryana but was later on transferred to Excise and Taxation Department and his services rendered in the previous department has been counted by the Department but has been wrongly denied to the petitioner.

(4). Written statement dated 13.11.2001 has been filed by OP Sheoran, Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Admn.), Haryana on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 wherein it has been averred that the petitioner’s requests for transfer made on 25.04.1974 and 05.06.1974 were never declined but was kept pending till the ban for transfer was lifted which was however, acceded to on 05.07.1974/08.07.1974 and the petitioner was transferred subject to approval of the Secretary, SSSB, Haryana (which was granted on 06.11.1979 Annexure R8) and expressly stating that his lien would not be retained in the head office cadre as his transfer had been made at his own request. He submits that the petitioner never raised any objection at the time of his transfer and accepted his transfer and consequently joined in the office of Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner at Rewari on 12.07.1974.

(5). Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the transfer was sought by the petitioner on the ground of taking care of his ailing father and now he cannot turn around and take a contrary stand for the purpose of seniority in the head office. It is then submitted that as per Rule 11 of the Haryana Excise and Taxation Department Subordinate Offices Ministerial (Group C) Services Rules, 1981 (in short, ‘the 1981 Rules’), the seniority inter se members of the service shall be determined by the length of continuous service on any post in the service and as such, the seniority can be given to the petitioner from the date of joining in the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Rewari.

(6). As regards counting of service rendered Anand Singh Dahiya in the Advocate General Office and later transferred to Excise and Taxation Department, learned counsel for the respondents submits that his repr