IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3369-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 09.04.2026 Mahender Malik ... Petitioner Vs.

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Ketan Antil, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate for Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the respondents.

*******

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. Present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant annual increment and ACP to the petitioner as well as all the consequential benefits along with interest @18% per annum till the actual realization. It is further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of the order dated 11.11.2019 (Annexure P-2) and the promotion order dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) to the extent of condition No.9 with regard to qualifying type test and computer test.

2. On 05.02.2026, following order was passed by this Court: -

“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 mandamus, directing the respondents to grant annual increment and ACP to the petitioner alongwith all other consequential benefits with interest @ 18% per annum till the date of actual realization. Further a writ of certiorari has been sought, for quashing the Office Order No.133/UH/GA-34/Reg./Vol-III dated 11.11.2019 (Annexure P-2) and the condition No.9 of the promotion order No.315 dated 19.11.2014 (Annexure P-1) with regard to qualifying the type test and qualification of computer test being violative of Recruitment & Promotion Policy in respect of LDC-MRs issued vide memo No.Ch-37/Reg. 114 dated

10.05.1989.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was promoted strictly in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Policy dated 10.05.1989, on the basis of prescribed qualifications and completion of 05 years experience. The petitioner was initially appointed on 06.12.2005 and was promoted on 19.11.2014, when the Instructions dated 10.05.1989 were fully in force. He further submits that the said Instructions, having been issued in exercise of the statutory rule- making power of the erstwhile Electricity Board, possessed a binding and sacrosanct character and could not have been withdrawn or superseded merely by an office order, much less with retrospective effect. The subsequent office order dated 11.11.2019 (Annexure P-2), whereby the Instructions dated 10.05.1989 were withdrawn retrospectively, has resulted in denial of time-bound scales and annual increments to the petitioner, thereby adversely affecting vested rights accrued to him. He further contends that such vested rights cannot be taken away retrospectively, even by legislative action and the impugned action is, therefore, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

At this stage, Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Parmar, Advocate, appears and seeks a short accommodation to have complete instructions in the matter and to file an appropriate reply.

Adjourned to 23.02.2026.”

3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, reply on behalf of the respondents has been filed, wherein the respondents have taken a specific stand that promotion order (Annexure P-1) was issued on 19.11.2024 and the petitioner acquiesced to the said condition for several years and he challenged the same after failing to qualify the aforesaid tests. As such, the petitioner cannot be allowed to agitate the impugned condition contained in the promotion order (Annexure P-1) after lapse of a period of more than 11 years. Further, the petitioner has no vested right for promotion, as the clarification dated 10.05.1989 to the policy dated 23.02.1989 was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP-18143-2018 titled as Nissar Ahmed Vs. State of Haryana and others. In the said petition, an interi