IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1. CWP-11499-2022 Jarnail Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others ..Respondents

2. CWP-12240-2022 Anil Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others ..Respondents Reserved on: 04.02.2026 Pronounced on:12.02.2026 Uploaded on:12.02.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Ms. Anu Chatrath, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yuvraj Dhananjaya, Advocate for respondent(s)-PSPCL in CWP-12240-2022.

*****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

This order of mine shall dispose of both of the above mentioned writ petitions. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-11499-2022.

1. The 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 certiorari to quash the letters dated 23.03.2020 (Annexure P-6) and 24.02.2022 (Annexure P-7) issued by respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner has been subjected to recovery proceedings on the ground that the two promotional increments granted to him at the time of his promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the year 2000 were erroneously given, as his appointment was allegedly a fresh appointment against Central Recruitment Agency (CRA) quota and not a promotion. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is sought directing the respondent corporation to grant the petitioner the pay scale of Assistant Engineer/Sub Divisional Officer w.e.f. 07.05.2020, the date on which he was promoted and assumed charge of the said post, instead of continuing him on the pay scale of Additional Assistant Engineer (AAE), which he has been drawing despite discharging the duties of the higher post.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed as a Lineman in the Punjab State Electricity Board on 05.03.1987. After acquiring the requisite experience, the petitioner appeared in the departmental examination conducted under CRA No.109/1997 under the 22% promotional quota reserved for existing employees and was duly selected. He was promoted as Junior Engineer (Electrical) vide order dated 21.06.2000 and was granted two promotional increments as per the prevalent rules. The petitioner further earned promotions and was promoted as Additional Assistant Engineer (AAE) in the year 2014 and thereafter as Assistant Engineer/Sub Divisional Officer (AE/SDO) w.e.f. 07.05.2020. It is submitted that the impugned audit objections and the consequent recovery orders are based on a fundamental misinterpretation of the nature of the petitioner’s appointment in the year 2000. The petitioner’s promotion was under a promotional quota meant for existing employees, which is evident from the selection list (Annexure P-3), the office order dated 21.06.2000 (Annexure P-5), and the correspondence issued by the department at the relevant time. It is argued that seeking recovery of increments granted more than 22 years ago is manifestly unjust, impermissible in law, and squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 Additionally, it is contended that the denial of the pay scale of AE/SDO to the petitioner, despite his regular promotion and continuous discharge of duties on the said post since May 2020, is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violates the principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as well as the law laid down in Subhash Chander v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 RSJ 442 and Smt. P. Grover v. State of Haryana AIR 1983 SC 1060. It is further pointed out that the petitioner’s immediate superior, the Senior Executive Engineer (respondent No.2), had also written to the audit department (respondent No.3) clarifying that the petitioner’s ca