IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH BALRAJ SINGH ...PETITIONER VERSUS PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AND ORS.

....RESPONDENTS

1. The date when the judgment is reserved 28.01.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 16.03.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded 16.03.2026

4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced

5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full Not applicable judgment and reason thereof.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yashdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate for respondents no. 1 and 2.

Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana ****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J Prayer

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of order dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure P-6) whereby representation of the petitioner has been rejected with a further direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner for promotion as assistant from the date juniors to the petitioner have been promoted with grant of all consequential benefits.

Brief Facts

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on regular basis on 21.08.1996 in the establishment governed by the Haryana Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment and General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997. During his service career he claims to have maintained a good service record and asserts that no adverse confidential report was ever communicated to him. However, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him on account of negligence which resulted in the loss of a judicial document, namely the deposition of a witness filed in a civil suit pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad. After the conclusion of the inquiry, the competent authority imposed a minor punishment on 09.10.2006 by stopping one annual grade increment without cumulative effect.

3. Subsequently, a seniority list of Clerks was issued in which the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 11, while the private respondents were placed below him. On 18.10.2006, the respondents promoted several juniors to the post of Assistant. The petitioner was not considered for promotion on the ground that he was undergoing the punishment of stoppage of increment and that, in view of the Government instructions dated 31.05.2006 issued in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. S. Murugesan 1995 (3) SCC 273, an employee undergoing punishment could not be granted promotion during the currency of such penalty.

4. Aggrieved by his non-promotion, the petitioner submitted representations to the authorities requesting that he be promoted on the basis of the rule of seniority-cum-merit prescribed under the applicable service rules. His representations were rejected by the District & Sessions Judge, Fatehabad on 18.12.2007.

5. Hence, the present writ petition.

Contentions On behalf of petitioner

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has a long and unblemished service record with consistently good confidential reports over the last ten years, and except for one minor punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect, he has never been found unfit for promotion. It was argued that the punishment imposed on 09.10.2006 related to a period between 2002 and 2003, and as per government instructions, the effect of such minor punishment should only reflect in the confidential report of the period to which the misconduct pertains, not as a bar to promotion.

7. Counsel further contended that the criteria for promotion from Clerk to Assistant is seniority-cum-merit, and the petitioner, being senior to the private respondents who were promoted, fulfilled all minimum standards prescribed for promotion. He submitted that the respondents acted arbitrarily by promoting juniors while ignoring the petitioner solely on the ground of a minor punishme