##PAGE1##

CWP-38321-2025 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

145

CWP-38321-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 22.12.2025

Parmod Kumar

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present: Mr. Anuj Malik, Advocate

and Mr. Pankaj Attri, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. A.G., Haryana

for respondent No.1.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate

for respondents No.2 to 4.

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 the order dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P-17)

passed by respondent No.3 vide which respondent No.5 has been

promoted to the post of Assistant General Manager (Accounts) being

junior to the petitioner. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought,

directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for

promotion to the post of Assistant General Manager (Accounts) w.e.f.

10.05.2022 and grant him all consequential benefits from the due date

MOHD YAKUB

2025.12.23 16:34

I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of

this document

Punjab & Haryana High Court,

Chandigarh.

CWP-38321-2025 2

till its actual realization with interest @ 18% per annum, within some

stipulated period. Lastly, it has been prayed that the respondents be

directed to keep one post reserve for promotion of the petitioner to the

post of Assistant General Manager (Accounts), during the pendency of

the writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that

the petitioner has been serving as a Section Officer (Accounts) since

2004 and is senior at Serial No. 9 in the relevant seniority list (Annexure

P-16), thereby having a legitimate right to be considered for promotion

to the post of Assistant General Manager (Accounts). He further submits

that departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in

relation to reimbursement of medical bills arising out of his chronic

illness, pursuant whereof a charge-sheet was issued (Annexure P-8) and

an enquiry report was submitted holding the charges to be only

“partially proved” (Annexure P-10). On the basis thereof, the Managing

Director imposed a penalty of stoppage of four increments with

cumulative effect (Annexure P-12). However, in appeal, the Appellate

Authority, vide order dated 01.10.2025 (Annexure P-15), accepted the

petitioner’s case and reduced the penalty to a mere “recorded warning,”

thereby effectively exonerating him of any major misconduct. Despite

this and notwithstanding his seniority, several juniors placed at Serial

Nos. 10 to 28, including respondent No.5, were promoted to the post of

Assistant General Manager (Accounts) vide order dated 19.09.2025

(Annexure P-17), while the petitioner’s case was arbitrarily withheld.

MOHD YAKUB

2025.12.23 16:34

I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of

this document

Punjab & Haryana High Court,

Chandigarh.

CWP-38321-2025 3

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that such action is

discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

India, besides being contrary to Government Instructions dated

19.07.1973, which prohibit denial of promotion solely on account of

stoppage of increments where the overall record is satisfactory and the

Government Instructions dated 18.11.1973, which entitle an employee

who is ultimately exonerated or awarded only a warning to retrospective

promotion from the date his junior was promoted. In support of his

contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya

Pradesh and another vs I.A. Qureshi, 1998(9) SCC 261 and Jagat

Narain vs Food Corporation of India, 2010(4) SCC 558

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits

that he would be satisfied if the instant writ petition of the petitioner is

treated as a comprehensive representation and the same be decided by

respondent No.3 by passing a sp