IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

212 Date of Decision: 10.09.2025 UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS ...Petitioners Versus SIRI NARAYAN AND ANOTHER ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present:- Mr. Parminder Singh Kanwar, Addl. Standing Counsel, with Mr. Deepak Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Brajesh Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. (Through V.C.)

*****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 10.05.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, by which, direction has been given to the petitioners to grant respondent No.1 the benefit of salary for the first year of deemed extension period out of the two years, by presuming that respondent No.1 has worked so as to pay him full salary for the first year of extension and 50% of the pay and allowances for the second year of extension.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that extension in service cannot be claimed as a matter of right and in the present case, without adverting to the said issue of law, the Tribunal has held that non- grant of benefit of extension to respondent No.1 is arbitrary and illegal and on the said ground, the benefit of salary for said deemed period of extension in service, has been granted, which impugned judgement of Tribunal may kindly be set aside.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that once, there was no justification to deny the benefit of extension to respondent No.1, the benefit of extension and consequently, the benefit of salary granted to respondent No.1 for the said period is perfectly valid and legal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is incorrect that the record of respondent No.1 was spotless rather, there are certain acts attributed to the respondent which were referred for investigation before the police and keeping in view the said fact itself, as the performance and integrity of respondent No.1 was under investigation, he was denied the benefit of extension in service.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their able assistance.

6. It is a settled principle of law that the benefit of extension cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In the present case, the Tribunal has granted respondent No.1 the benefit of deemed extension in service along with the salary for the said deemed extension period, even though respondent No.1 has not actually worked for a single day during the said period.

7. It may be noticed that certain acts have been attributed to respondent No1 while he was in service before attaining the age of superannuation, which acts were referred to the police for the purpose of investigation. That itself means that certain aspersions were cast upon respondent No.1 during his service period.

8. It may be noticed that the benefit of extension in service is to be granted to an employee, who has been exceptional while performing the duties assigned to him/her and will be an asset to the institution even after attaining the age of superannuation, whereas the Tribunal has granted the said benefit of extension to respondent No.1 by treating the extension in service which is to be extended to an employee as a matter of right.

9. The law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and others vs. Jag Mohan Lal, AIR 1989, SC 75, clearly states that the said benefit of extension in service can only be granted to the competent officers so as to promote the interest of the institution where such employee has been working and not to confer any benefit or favour or right upon retiring officers. Further, as per the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.959- 960 of 2000, decided on 27.04.2006, titled as D.C. Aggarwal (Dead) by LRs vs. State Bank of I