IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sukhwinder Singh Gill ......Appellant Versus Punjab Housing Development Board ......Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 10.02.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 07.03.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 09.03.2026

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

5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable judgment, and reasons thereof CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Argued by: - Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate, for the appellant.

Ms. Anu Chatrath, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Ratik Chatrath, Advocate, and Ms. Jyoti Pandey, Advocate, for the respondent.

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. Instant Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1989, passed by the First Appellate Court, vide which the appeal filed by the respondent-defendant against the judgment and decree dated

15.12.1986, passed by the trial Court, has been allowed and suit of the appellant-plaintiff seeking a decree of declaration, has been dismissed.

2. Parties to the lis are being referred to as per their status before the trial Court. The pleaded case of the plaintiff is that he was appointed as Sectional Officer (C) by the defendant vide letter dated 12.02.1981. As per condition of the appointment letter, he was to remain on probation for a period of two years, which could be extended for one year more. Plaintiff joined the service as Sectional Officer (C) on 19.02.1981 by reporting at the office of the defendant at Chandigarh and he was directed to attend his duties in the office of the Divisional Engineer (C), Punjab Housing Development Board at Jalandhar. Accordingly, plaintiff reported at Jalandhar on 25.02.1981 and he was assigned the duties as Sectional Officer (C) at Hoshiarpur Sub Division where he joined on 26.02.1981. Two years’ service of the plaintiff completed on 24/25.02.1983 and till then no orders for extension of his probation period were passed or conveyed to him. However, vide order dated 08.07.1983, probation period of the plaintiff was extended for one more year. The plaintiff filed a representation before the defendant against the order of extending his probation period, however, he did not receive any reply to the said representation. In the general transfers of 1982, plaintiff was transferred from Hoshiarpur to Ludhiana, Division No.1. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.01.1984, passed by Housing Commissioner, services of the plaintiff were terminated on the ground that during probation period, the work and conduct of the plaintiff was not satisfactory. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed representation dated 01.03.1984, which was rejected vide order dated 26.03.1984 and ultimately, on 04.04.1984 plaintiff served a notice through his counsel as required under law, but nothing useful was done by the defendant. Thus, plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 19.01.1984, whereby services of the plaintiff were terminated was illegal, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction, mala fide, null and void and the plaintiff be deemed to be still in service of the defendant enjoying all the rights and privileges of his monthly salary, dearness allowance and other allowances, including the annual grade increments already accrued or yet to accrue in future.

3. Upon being served, defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement taking various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the suit and jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the suit. It was denied that the order extending the probation period of the plaintiff was illegal, void or mala fide. It was stated that plaintiff had earned adverse remarks in his annual confidential reports for the years 1981-82, 1982-83, which were duly conveyed to him on 10.06.1983 and 20.06.1983, respectiv