IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

232 CWP-20439-2022 Date of Decision:21.04.2026 Amrit Lal Sharma .....Petitioner VERSUS State Of Haryana And Another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tamanna Banwala, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Chirag Wadhwa, DAG, Haryana-State.

None for respondent No.2.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral)

1. This 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 for quashing the order dated 15.12.2020 (Annexure P-27), being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of the principles of natural justice, non- speaking and passed without application of mind; and for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the official respondents to count the period of service rendered by the petitioner from 1996 to 2007 and to consider his case for consequential benefits, including promotion to the post of Assistant w.e.f. the due date and thereafter to the posts of Deputy Superintendent, Superintendent and Under Secretary, along with all consequential monetary benefits such as upgradation of pay, increments, etc., and release of arrears along with interest and further to pass appropriate directions to the official respondents to consider and decide the representations submitted by the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

2. On 17.01.2023, following order was passed:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (field) on adhoc basis on 25.08.1982. His services were regularized on the said post w.e.f. 01.09.1984. Thereafter, the petitioner participated in the Departmental Accounts Examination for ministerial establishment on 15.12.1995 and successfully passed the same. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk (field) on 22.05.1996. In the year 1999, the petitioner was deputed in Bhakra Beas Management Board and on the option of the petitioner, his cadre was changed from field office to head office on 20.08.2007. The petitioner had joined the said cadre as Upper Division Clerk (head quarter) on 24.08.2007 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Assistant (head quarter) on

06.09.2010. The petitioner had retired on

30.08.2020.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the service rendered by the petitioner in the Field Cadre has not been considered for the purpose of computing his total length of service towards seniority and other benefits.

Notice of motion returnable on

18.07.2023.”

3. Service was complete on 18.07.2023 and respondent No.2 had sought time to file reply. Thereafter, on 05.10.2023, learned State counsel sought time to file reply. Same request was made on 14.02.2024. Today, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. However, written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.2 is available, which is taken on record. In the said written statement, it has been mentioned that petitioner was appointed as LDC on ad hoc basis in the Field Cadre vide office order No.106/EB-51/C dated 25.08.1982. Thereafter, his services were regularized as LDC in Field Cadre w.e.f. 01.09.1984 vide office order No.60 dated 03.02.1987. The written statement also mentions that the petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court.

4. The erstwile Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB) had two clerical cadres i.e. Head Office Cadre and Circle Cadre (Field Cadre). The seniority in both cadres is taken differently. In terms of the policy instructions dated 25.08.1987 (Annexure R-1), it was provided that for change of cadre, the minimum length of service should be ten years. The relevant extract of which is as under:-

“(i) Pay scale of the post (s) should be identical.

(ii) The candidate must fulfill minimum qualifications prescribed for the post to which the employee desires to change over.

(