IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 24.02.2026 Jagdish Chand Gupta …..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present : None for the petitioner.

Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.

****

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 02.08.2012 (Annexure P-9), passed by respondent No.1 whereby second ACP has been granted after completion of 11 years of service as Senior Assistant instead of completion of 09 years of service i.e. from 24.12.2007 instead of 24.12.2005; for quashing the orders dated 28.12.2012 (Annexure P- 10) and 20.11.2014 (Annexure P-11) whereby application as well as appeal filed by the petitioner for expunging the adverse remarks in the ACR for the period of 2004-05 have been rejected; for quashing the order dated 01.12.2025 (Annexure P-18) whereby representation of the petitioner has been rejected and a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to grant second ACP to the petitioner on completion of 09 years service as Senior Assistant w.e.f. 24.12.2005 with all consequential benefits.

2. Brief facts, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk with the respondents on 08.05.1978 and he was promoted as Senior Clerk w.e.f. 19.06.1986 and thereafter as Senior Assistant w.e.f. 24.12.1996. The ACR of the petitioner for the year 2003-04 (Annexure P-1) was average but no adverse remarks were communicated to him. Petitioner was conveyed ACR for the year 2004- 05 (Annexure P-2) wherein remarks “sometimes comes late to the office” were recorded. Against the said adverse remarks, petitioner submitted representations dated 14.12.2005, 16.05.2007, 04.12.2007, 20.04.2009 and 13.07.2009 (Annexure P-3 to P-7) to the respondents, which were never considered by the department. The petitioner was granted ACP on completion of four years of service as Senior Assistant from 24.12.2000, vide order dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure P-8). The petitioner was entitled for ACP scale on completion of nine years of service as Senior Assistant w.e.f. 24.12.2005, however, the same was granted w.e.f. 24.12.2007 vide impugned order dated 02.08.2012 (Annexure P-9). Petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.11.2012, which was rejected by respondent No.1 vide memo dated 28.12.2012 (Annexure P-10). Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal, which too was dismissed by respondent No.2 vide memo dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure P-11). Thereafter, petitioner filed CWP No.20508 of 2015 for quashing the impugned order dated 02.08.2012, however, as the orders dated 28.12.2012 and 20.11.2014 were not challenged by the petitioner, the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.01.2023 (Annexure P-12). Thereafter, petitioner filed CWP No.4177 of 2023 challenging the orders dated 02.08.2012, 28.12.2012 and 20.11.2014, however, the same was withdrawn vide order dated 22.03.2023 (Annexure P-13) to avail an alternative remedy. Petitioner submitted representation/appeal dated 06.03.2025 (Annexure P-14) to the respondents, however, as the same was not decided by respondent No.2, consequently, the petitioner sent reminder on 04.07.2025 (Annexure P-15) to respondent No.2 to decide the said representation/appeal. However, as the representation of the petitioner was not decided, he filed CWP No.22324 of 2025, which was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 04.08.2025 (Annexure P-16), with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation dated 06.03.2025, within a period of six months. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 01.12.2025 (Annexure P-18). Hence, the instant petition.

3. On the last date of hearing i.e. 16.02.2026, case was adjourned on the request made on behalf of learned c