HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Decided on 09.12.2025 ****

Rohit Sharma ... Petitioner VS.

State of Haryana & Ors. ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL ****

Present: Mr. Sunil K Nehra, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Karan Ranjha, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. AG Haryana Mr. RK Malik, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, Advocate for respondents No.4, 6, 9 & 11 Mr. Pankaj Bains, Advocate for respondent No.14 ****

Sandeep Moudgil, J. CM-4104-CWP-2023 Allowed as prayed. Documents (Annexure P6 to P13) are taken on record subject to just exceptions.

CM-17981-CWP-2025 Allowed as prayed. Document (Annexure A1) is taken on record subject to just exceptions.

Main case (1). This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 02.08.2006 (Annexure P7) to the extent that the appointment order has not been issued to the petitioner w.e.f. 07.07.2006 and to quash the impugned seniority list of the post of Clerk as on 01.01.2007 (Annexure P8) to the extent the private respondents have been shown senior to the petitioner. He also seeks to set aside the order dated 24.05.2010 (Annexure P11) whereby his claim for grant of seniority over and above the private respondents has been rejected with a direction to grant him appointment as Clerk w.e.f. 07.07.2006 in the order of precedence according to the date of death of his father with all consequential benefits.

(2). The facts of the present case are that the petitioner’s father, late Sh. Purshotam Lal Sharma, Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department at Kaithal, died in harness on 06.12.1999 and at that time, his age was 14 years only. The petitioner requested the Engineer-in-Chief (EIC) on 21.01.2000 to reserve a post for him till he became eligible for compassionate appointment as Clerk under the ex-gratia policy dated 31.08.1995 (Annexure P1), and, having passed matriculation in first division with 76.40% marks on 28.05.2001, he fulfilled the then requisite qualification for the post of Clerk.

(3). Notwithstanding this, the EIC’s office offered him only a Group-D post of Beldar on 01.01.2002, which he initially declined claiming to be entitled to a Class-III post but later accepted his appointment as Beldar subsequently on 07.05.2003, even as other similarly placed candidates were placed on the waiting list for Clerk.

(4). Pursuant to the directions of this Court passed in a writ petition filed by the petitioner in CWP No.15191 of 2005, the Engineer-in-Chief passed a speaking order dated 24.01.2006 (Annexure P4) placing the petitioner at Sr. No.19 in the ex-gratia seniority/waiting list for appointment as Clerk “as and when” a vacancy arose, in terms of the policy letter dated 31.08.1995 (Annexure P1) which mandates date-of-death-wise seniority and prohibits consideration of subsequent ex-gratia cases in preference to earlier ones. As per seniority list of Clerks (Annexure P8), the petitioner was shown junior most at Sr.No.77 (as per date of joining) as on 01.01.2007, due to his appointment after the private respondents.

(5). He sought information under the RTI Act and as per reply dated 17.01.2023 (Annexure P14) along with notings dated 22.06.2006 received from the official respondents, the department processed ex-gratia Clerk appointments in Head Office on a date-of-death-wise basis and that candidates temporarily left out for want of documents were to retain their seniority, yet two persons, namely Anil Yadav and Arun Gupta, were accorded seniority Nos.1 and 2 in preference to the petitioner, giving rise to the present challenge to the non-implementation and breach of the said policy and speaking order.

(6). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is primarily arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, despite being an earlier ex-gratia claima