IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-26549-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 08.09.2025 Jasvir Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Shubham Chandel, Advocate for Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab for respondent No.1.

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 11.

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 of communication/reply dated 17.02.2025 (Annexure P-3), issued by respondent/Department. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to count the petitioner’s contractual service from 02.12.2011 towards seniority, promotion and all consequential benefits, etc.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Lineman/SSA in the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) on 02.12.2011, on a contractual basis for two years, against a sanctioned permanent post following a transparent recruitment process under CRA No. 267/11. The petitioner fulfilled all prescribed qualifications and eligibility criteria and continuously discharged his duties with sincerity and dedication during the contractual period. Upon completion of the contractual period, the petitioner’s services were regularised with effect from 01.07.2015 in accordance with departmental policy. Since joining, the petitioner has served the department without any blemish and was promoted as Junior Engineer (Electrical) vide order dated 25.06.2024. The petitioner’s service from 02.12.2011 till date has been continuous and uninterrupted against the sanctioned posts. The petitioner served a legal notice dated 16.01.2025 requesting that his entire continuous service be counted for seniority, promotion, and all consequential benefits. The respondents, however, have not decided the claim of the petitioner and issued the impugned reply stating that the matter is pending consideration before the Punjab Government, thereby deferring the claim of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s contractual service from the date of joining ought to be counted towards seniority, promotion, and all consequential service benefits as he was appointed against a permanent sanctioned post and subsequently regularised without any break in service. It is further submitted that similarly situated employees in other departments of the Punjab Government have been granted such benefits, ensuring parity and equality before the law. The petitioner’s claim is supported by binding judicial precedents which recognize that contractual or work-

charge service against sanctioned posts, followed by regularisation, must be counted for pensionary and other service benefits. The arbitrary stand of the respondents deferring the petitioner’s claim indefinitely violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 11, appearing on advance notice, submits that the respondents have acted in accordance with departmental instructions and government policy. The impugned communication clearly states that the matter is pending consideration before the Government of Punjab and therefore, no decision can be taken. The respondents deny any discrimination or violation of the petitioner’s rights and contend that the petitioner’s claim does not warrant interference at this stage.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance.

6. The issue involved in this petition has been authoritatively decided by the Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1988(5) SLR 25, wherein it was held that the work-charge service rendered prior to regularisation is to be counted