Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Mehar Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Others on 21 January, 2025
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008666
276+278
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Dated: 21.01.2025
1. CWP-35184-2019 (O&M)
RAM MEHAR SINGH AND ANR.
ANR ........Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
........Respondent(s)
2. CWP-6774-2020 (O&M)
KULVINDER KUMAR AND ORS. ........Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH
AND ORS.
........Respondent(s)
3. CWP-10610-2020 (O&M)
SUNIL
NIL KUMAR ........Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
........Respondent(s)
4. CWP-7129-2020 (O&M)
AMRINDER SINGH ........Petitioner
VERSUS
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH
........Respondent(s)
1 of 13
::: Downloaded on - 27-01-2025 22:01:09 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008666
CWP-35184-2019 (O&M) and other connected cases
-2-
5. CWP-9566-2020 (O&M)
GURWINDER SINGH ........Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
........Respondent(s)
6. CWP-9568-2020 (O&M)
IQBAL SINGH ........Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
........Respondent(s)
7. CWP-12900-2020 (O&M)
MOHINDER PAL ........Petitioner
VERSUS
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND ORS.
........Respondent(s)
8. CWP-6378-2021 (O&M)
IVNEET SINGH ........Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ........Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Shadab Ahmad, Advocate for
Mr. Pankaj Garg, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP No.35184 of 2019.
Mr. B.S Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioner in
CWP No.6774 of 2020 and CWP No.10610 of 2020.
Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate
For the petitioners in CWP No.7129 of 2020.
2 of 13
::: Downloaded on - 27-01-2025 22:01:09 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008666
CWP-35184-2019 (O&M) and other connected cases
-3-
Mr. R.K Arora, Advocate and Mr. Jugam Arora, Advocate
For the petitioners in CWP Nos.9566, 12900, 6378 and 9568 of
2020.
Ms. Akshita Chauhan, DAG Punjab.
Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate
For respondent Nos.2 to 4 in CWP No.35184 of 2019.
None for respondent Nos.5 to 7 in CWP No.35184 of 2019.
Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate for respondent-Court
In CWP No.10610 of 2020 and CWP No.12900 of 2020.
Ms. Puja Chopra, Advocate
For respondent Nos.3 and 4 in CWP No.6378 of 2021
And for respondent No.5 in CWP No.9566 of 2020.
Ms. Sangita Dhanda, Advocate
For respondent Nos.1 and 2 in CWP No.6774 of 2020 and
CWP No.7129 of 2020.
Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka, Advocate
For the respondent-Court in CWP No.9568 of 2020.
***
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
1. Present bunch of writ petitions involve common question of law
in the background of common set of facts and thus they are being decided by
a common order.
2. In the present bunch of petitions, the grievance of the
petitioners is that the resignation submitted by the petitioner(s) in order to
join the State of Punjab on the post of Clerk while working on the post of
Clerk in various Respective Session Divisions in pursuance to
Advertisement dated 24.09.2016 has not been treated as a technical
resignation and rather, it has been treated as a simple resignation so as to
cause prejudice to the petitioner(s) so that, they are not able to plead to the
3 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008666
CWP-35184-2019 (O&M) and other connected cases
new department in the State of Punjab for the benefit of continuity of service
and protection of the pay as admissible under the Punjab Civil Services
Rules.
3. Certain facts may be noticed for the correct appreciation of the
issue in hand.
4. The petitioner(s) applied for the post of Clerk in pursuance to
an advertisement No.4/2016 issued by the State of Punjab on 01.09.2016, as
well as for the post of Clerks in pursuance to Advertisement dated
24.09.2016 advertised by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to be filled in
various respective Session Divisions in the State of Punjab and Haryana.
5. The selection process with regard to the advertisement dated
24.09.2016 issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court was completed
and the petitioner(s), upon being selected were appointed in various Sessions
Divisions starting from the year 2016 onwards till 2019.
6. While working on the said posts of Clerk, as the petitioners had
already applied for the post of Clerk qua the advertisement dated 01.09.2016
issued by the State of Punjab, they were called for participation so as to
appear in the counselling/written examination. Before appearing in the
counselling/written examination, the petitioner(s) sought permission, which
permission was granted to all the petitioner(s) except two petitioners in CWP
No.10610 of 2020 and CWP No.12900 of 2020.
7. In fact, all the petitioner(s) appeared in the written
examination/counselling and ultimately cleared the selection process and
were also selected by the State of Punjab against the post of Clerk in
pursuance to the advertisement dated 01.09.2016.
4 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008666
CWP-35184-2019 (O&M) and other connected cases
8. Thereafter, in order to join the post of Clerk with the new
department i.e. State of Punjab, the petitioners sought the grant of technical
resignation so that, there is a continuity in service and the petitioner(s) could
get the benefit of protection of the pay scale which they were getting while
working with the respective Session Divisions of the State of Punjab upon
joining the new post of Clerk with the State of Punjab.
9. The said permission to grant the technical resignation has been
denied to the petitioner(s) and their resignations have been treated as a
normal resignation from the service, which is causing prejudice to the
petitioner(s), which grievance has been raised before this Court in the
present petition.
10. It may be noticed that by the time petitioner(s) got selection
against the Advertisement dated 01.09.2016, most of the petitioners had
already cleared the period of probation and were confirmed against their
respective posts of Clerk in the various Session Divisions.
11. The prayer of the petitioner(s) in the present bunch of petitions
is that the resignation which they have submitted so as to join the new post
of Clerk with the State of Punjab be treated as a technical resignation so that
the petitioner(s) can claim the benefit of continuity in service as well as
protection of pay upon joining the new post with the State of Punjab keeping
in view the Punjab Civil Services Rules, which will govern their services.
12. Upon notice of motion, the respondent-State as well as the
Punjab and Haryana High Court have filed the reply.
13. Learned counsel for the State of Punjab submits that as of now,
none of the petitioner(s) have been extended the benefit of technical
5 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008666
CWP-35184-2019 (O&M) and other connected cases
resignation, which is the requirement under the Punjab Civil Services Rules,
so as to claim the benefit of continuity and protection of pay hence in case,
the petitioner(s) are not able to secure technical resignation and any request
is made by the petitioner(s) on the ground of benefit of said resignation, the
same will be considered and decided accordingly.
14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court submits that keeping in view the various facts as well as the
instructions issued by the Government of Punjab dated 19.02.2016, which
have already been adopted by Punjab and Haryana High Court, upon
joining the post with the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the petitioner(s)
were required to give the information that they have already applied for the
post of Clerk with the State of Punjab and want to compete for the same but
as the said information was not given, the claim of the petitioner(s) qua grant
of technical resignation has been declined as the said information was
received from the petitioner(s) much after the joining of the post of the
Clerk in the various Respective Session Divisions, where they were
appointed and had joined in pursuance to the advertisement dated
24.09.2016.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent High Court further submits
that in some of the cases after joining the post in various respective Session
Divisions in the cadre of Clerk, permission to compete for the post of Clerk
in pursuance to the Advertisement dated 01.09.2016 were sought, which was
declined but still, the petitioner(s) competed for the post by appearing in the
written examination and counselling thereafter so as to get selected hence, in
their cases, it cannot be said that they had the valid permission to compete
6 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008666
CWP-35184-2019 (O&M) and other connected cases
for the post in pursuance to the Advertisement dated 01.09.2016 so as to
claim the benefit of technical resignation.
16. Learned counsel for the respondent-High Court further submits
that in some of the cases, the permission was not sought even after joining
but the candidate still competed and got selected hence, permission to
compete for the post of Clerk was not sought from the competent authority
while working with the various respective Session Divisions.
17. Learned counsel for the respondent-High Court further submits
that in some of the cases, the resignation have been accepted as a normal
resignation and the petitioners have joined as such with the State of Punjab
but thereafter they have approached this Court to treat the said resignation as
a technical resignation, which benefit may kindly be declined to them.
18. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that
in some of the cases where no permission was sought by the candidates who
were similarly situated as petitioners and wanted to compete for the post in
question qua the advertisement dated 01.09.2016 issued by the State of
Punjab, the permission has been given subsequent to their selection by the
respective Session Divisions on the basis of which, even the benefit such as
protection of pay has also been given by the State of Punjab upon their
joining hence, the petitioner(s) who were given permission to compete,
cannot be treated at a lower pedestal so as to deny the benefit of technical
resignation to the petitioner(s) who competed for the post of Clerk in
pursuance to the advertisement dated 01.09.2016 with permission.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) further submits that some
of the candidates who were not granted the benefit of technical resignation
7 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008666
CWP-35184-2019 (O&M) and other connected cases
joined the State of Punjab still they were also granted the benefit of
protection of pay hence, the petitioner(s) are being discriminated not only by
the Punjab and Haryana High Court but also by the State of Punjab for the
grant of the same benefit, which is arbitrary and illegal.
20. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the records of the present case with their able assistance.
21. It is a conceded fact that the petitioner(s) applied for the post of
Clerk in pursuance to the advertisement dated 01.09.2016 prior to the
selection of the petitioner(s) with the various Respective Session Divisions
of the State of Punjab in pursuance to the Advertisement dated 24.09.2016.
It is also a conceded fact that under such circumstances, the State of Punjab
has already issued instructions dated 19.02.2016 wherein, the only requisite
is that upon joining of the post, the information qua the application already
submitted for another post is to be given so as to get the benefit of technical
resignation.
22. In the present bunch of petitions, the petitioner(s) gave the said
information before participating in the selection process in pursuance to the
advertisement dated 01.09.2016. It is also a conceded fact that the competent
authority in the Respective Session Divisions, allowed most of the
petitioner(s) to participate in the written examination/ counselling with the
condition that they will have to submit the technical resignation in case they
are selected in pursuance to the advertisement dated 01.09.2016 issued by
the State of Punjab.
23. The objection taken by the respondents to deny the benefit of
technical resignation is that rather than giving the information immediately
8 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008666
CWP-35184-2019 (O&M) and other connected cases
after joining with the various Session Divisions, the said information was
delayed which will extinguish the rights of the petitioner(s) to claim the
benefit of technical resignation.
24. It may be noticed that the benefit of technical resignation is to
be extended where an employee seeks to join another post with another
employer after the permission of the present department. Whether the said
permission to participate was given immediately or when needed, does not
make much of the difference. Once, it was to the knowledge of the
competent authority in the Respective Session Divisions that the
petitioner(s) are participating in the selection process in pursuance to the
advertisement dated 01.09.2016, after their selection, the objection should
not have been raised so as to deny the claim to the petitioner(s).
25. Everyone has a right to plan his/her future as one feels. Unless
and until there is a prejudice being caused to the particular department, the
permission of technical resignation should have been granted.
26. On being asked, as to whether, by the grant of technical
resignation, any prejudice will be caused to the Punjab and Haryana High
Court or to any of the Respective Session Divisions, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the High Court has not been able to enumerate even
one valid reason so as to deny, the benefit of technical resignation to the
petitioners.
27. Once, the Respective Session Divisions are not prejudiced even
if, the resignation submitted by the petitioners is treated as a technical
resignation, question of denying the same only on the ground that the
candidates should have informed the said fact immediately upon joining
9 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008666
CWP-35184-2019 (O&M) and other connected cases
various Respective Session Divisions, needs to be rejected and is
accordingly rejected.
28. Further, the technical resignation is to be submitted so that an
employee can claim the benefit of continuity in service and benefit of
protection of pay in their new Department, which benefit is not to be given
by the Punjab and Haryana High Court or the Respective Session Divisions
but is to be given by the State of Punjab, where the petitioner(s) intended to
join after being selected. Once, the State of Punjab is not raising any
objection qua the grant of the said benefit subject to the technical resignation
being accepted, the Sessions Divisions should have been gracious enough to
grant the said benefit to the petitioner(s) rather forcing them to litigate
before the court of law.
29. Further, it has also come on record that certain candidates
participated in pursuance to the advertisement dated 01.09.2016 even
without informing various Respective Session Divisions rather the said
information was given after their selection and the Respective Session
Divisions has already been given them the ex-post facto permission to
participate. Once, the ex-post facto permission has been given to such
candidates, which ultimately results in technical resignation so as to join the
newly selected posts with the department, denying the benefit to the
petitioner(s) only on the basis of a technicality despite the fact that almost all
the petitioner(s) participated in the selection process by getting the
permission either before appearing for the counselling/written examination
or after getting selected in pursuance to the advertisement dated 01.09.2016.
Hence, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner(s) for the grant of
10 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008666
CWP-35184-2019 (O&M) and other connected cases
technical resignation by the respective Session Divisions, cannot be
sustained and the impugned orders declining the same are accordingly set
aside.
30. With regard to the assertion of the respondent counsel
appearing on behalf of the Respective Session Divisions in CWP No.10610
of 2020 and CWP No.12900 of 2020, where it has been mentioned that the
prayer for the appearing in the written examination/counselling was denied
to the petitioners therein but they still appeared for the written
examination/counselling hence, they cannot claim the benefit of technical
resignation, it may be noticed that in CWP No.10610 of 2020, the petitioner
therein sought permission to appear in the counselling/written examination
on 01.06.2019 which was scheduled to be held on 10.06.2019. The declining
of the permission to appear was never brought to his notice upto the date of
the examination and the same was brought to his notice after the
examination was held. Hence, in the said case also, once the petitioner in
CWP No.10610 of 2020 never knew that his request to appear in the
examination has been declined and he appeared in good faith, it cannot be
said that the petitioner appeared despite rejection of his claim. It can be said
that the candidate appeared without the permission of the same hence, he is
to be treated similar to the candidates, who appeared in the examination
without permission but were later on granted the ex-post facto permission so
as to appear and compete for the post of Clerk in pursuance to advertisement
dated 01.09.2016..
31. Further, the said issue qua the grant of technical resignation is
no longer res integra, the same has already been decided by this Court more
11 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008666
CWP-35184-2019 (O&M) and other connected cases
than once. While deciding CWP No.11810 of 2019 titled "Ankur Sharma
Vs. State of Punjab and ors.", dated 30.09.2024, the similar issue arose,
which has been decided in the favour of the candidate so as to treat his
resignation as technical resignation.
32. Learned counsel for the respondents have not been able to rebut
the said fact that the claim of the petitioner(s) is similar to that of Ankur
Sharma's case (supra) hence, the said judgment applies upon the claim of
the petitioner(s) to their benefit.
33. Further, the similar issue arose qua the denial of the technical
resignation by the respective Session Divisions, which issue was decided by
this Court while deciding CWP No.21498 of 2024 titled "Vikas Sandhu Vs.
Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and ors.", dated
09.01.2025, wherein also, on the similar issue, where the benefit of technical
resignation was being denied only on the ground that the candidate never
competed with the permission of District and Sessions Judge, Karnal, the
benefit was allowed in favour of the employee concerned wherein, the said
employee was given permission to participate in the subsequent selection
process by the District and Sessions Judge, Karnal. There also, before
selection, the said benefit to participate in the selection process had been
given to almost all the petitioner(s). That being so, the claim of the
petitioner(s) is also covered by the judgment in Vikas Sandhu's case
(supra).
34. Keeping in view the above, the impugned orders of denying the
benefit of technical resignation to the petitioner(s) by various respective
Session Divisions are accordingly set aside.
12 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008666
CWP-35184-2019 (O&M) and other connected cases
35. The resignation submitted by the petitioner(s) will be treated as
technical resignation for all intents and purposes. The State of Punjab will be
free to decide the claim of the petitioner(s) in accordance with the law
keeping in view the fact that the resignation submitted by the petitioner(s)
are technical resignations.
36. The present bunch of petitions are allowed in above terms.
37. Any claim raised by the petitioner(s) with the State of Punjab
for the grant of any benefit keeping in view the fact that their resignations
should be treated as a technical resignation, be decided by the State of
Punjab as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 3 months
from the receipt of copy of this order.
38. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
39. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other
connected cases.
21-01-2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Sapna Goyal
JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking: YES
Whether reportable: NO
13 of 13
