[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amrit Lal Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Another on 21 April, 2026
1
CWP-20439-2022
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
CWP-20439-2022
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
CWP-20439-2022
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
CWP-20439-2022
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.
(iii) The work and conduct of the official should
be satisfactory for the last 10 years.
(iv) The minimum length of service, before
allowing change of cadre, should be ten years.
(v) In the event of change of cadre, the employee
will have to forego all the Special Allowances attached
with the previous post (s) from where he is seeking switch-
over which are otherwise not allowed in the new cadre
post (s).
(vi) The employee will be placed at the tail end of
the seniority list of the cadre to which he switches over.
Thereafter objections were raised by some
officials which was decided/ clarified vide memo No.
Ch-37/NGE/G-541/L dated 16.05.1988, (Annexure R-2).
The relevant extract of the instructions/clarification is
reads as under:-
(iii) Whether the period of 10 years will include
the period of adhoc/ work-charged/daily wages etc. or
not? No., only regular service of 10 years will be
countable.
(iv) Whether the period of 10 years will include
the total service rendered by the official in any capacity or
the service rendered by the official in a post or a grade?
The Change of Cadre will be allowed on initial
appointment after completing 10 year service. Besides, the
CWP-20439-2022
change of cadre will be permissible only to the categories
which the employee intends switchover, if explicit
provision of direct to to recruitment exists in the relevant
service rules.
(V) Whether an official belonging to Circle Cadre
can opt for Head Office Cadre or vice-versa.
The change of cadre from Circle Cadre to Head Office
Cadre and vice versa will not be allowed."
5. Further, a clarification was issued vide instructions dated
16.05.1988 (Annexure R-2) to the extent that only regular service of ten
years would be counted and not the ad hoc period for change of cadre. It is
further discernible that the petitioner had applied for the change of his cadre
from field to Head Office on 11.02.1987 and thereafter, in the year 1992.
Both the requests were rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not
fulfil the condition of having ten years of regular service. Yet again, the
petitioner applied for change of cadre in the year 1996 and on 27.02.2004,
on the ground that his wife is under treatment. His request for the same was
considered and not accepted as an embargo was placed on inter-cadre
change vide office memo dated 30.10.1995. It is further discernible from the
written statement that the petitioner applied for change of his cadre for the
last time in the year 2007 and submitted an affidavit, copy of which is
available as (Annexures R-6 & R-7). A perusal of the said affidavits
(Annexures R-6 & R-7) clearly indicates that the petitioner has undertaken
to not seek repatriation to the Field Cadre and has no objection if he is
placed at the tail end of the seniority list of the UDC's born of Head Office
CWP-20439-2022
Cadre in the event of his request for change of cadre being accepted. He has
also undertaken to forego all the special allowances attached with the post of
UDC (Field Cadre) which are otherwise not allowed in the new Head Office
Cadre. Subsequently, the request of the petitioner was accepted vide office
order No.121/NGE/G-1157/UDC/LDC/MR/VI-II dated 20.08.2007
(Annexure R-8) on the following conditions:-
"i) That he will have no claim to come back
from Head Office to Field Cadre under any
circumstances.
ii) that he will have no claim of seniority as
UDC in Field Cade and will be placed at the tail end of
the seniority list of UDC (in the Head Office Cadre).
iii) That he will have to forego all the Special
Allowances/other benefits attached with
the post of UDC (Field Cadre) which are otherwise not
allowed in the Head Office Cadre post."
Accordingly, the petitioner joined in Head Office Cadre on
24.08.2007 as UDC (Head Office). Thereafter the petitioner was promoted
from UDC (HO) to Assistant (HO) vide office order No. 471/NGE/G-
368/Vol.X dated 6.9.2010, copy of which is annexed as Annexure R-9."
6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP-26850-2016
tilted as Amrit Lal Sharma vs. State of Haryana & Ors., and has been
actively agitating his claim since long. He refers to the table at page No.123
of the paperbook and submits that respondent No.2 has indulged in cherry-
picking as the claim of the petitioner was kept in abeyance and rejected
CWP-20439-2022
repeatedly whereas, his juniors in the Field Cadre were shifted to Head
Office Cadre during the subsistence of the same rules which were applied to
deny the claim of the petitioner. In doing so, respondent No.2 has allowed
his juniors to unjustly steal a march over the petitioner.
7. Furthermore, para No.4 of the written statement reveals that the
petitioner made a representation dated 06.06.2016 to allow him to change
his cadre w.e.f. 19.09.1999 instead of 2007, as discernible from Annexure
R-10. The same was considered and not found feasible for acceptance on the
ground of delay and laches as the petitioner had sought
review/reconsideration after a gap of 20 years as discernible from Annexure
R-11.
8. Moreover, in the earlier round of litigation when the petitioner
filed CWP-26850-2016 (supra), this Court vide order dated 12.02.2020
disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to pass a
fresh order in accordance with law as discernible from Annexure R-12. In
purported compliance, respondent No.2 passed a speaking order rejecting
the claim of the petitioner with respect to change of cadre retrospectively as
it was not found feasible for acceptance, as discernible from Annexure R-13.
9. Para No.7 and 8 further indicates that the petitioner had
escalated the matter by filing COCP-2196-2020, which was disposed of on
01.12.2020 with a direction to pass fresh speaking order after compliance
with the principle of natural justice. In compliance thereof, the petitioner
was given an opportunity of hearing and after taking into consideration the
CWP-20439-2022
facts on record and relevant rules, a fresh speaking order was passed on
15.12.2020 as discernible from Annexure R-15.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent
No.1 and after perusing the written statement filed by respondent No.2, it
transpires that the request for change of petitioner's cadre from Field Cadre
to Head Office Cadre was accepted on 20.08.2007 (Annexure R-8).
However, certain condition(s) were imposed on the petitioner forbidding
him to claim repatriation to the Field Cadre under any circumstance(s) or
seniority as UDC in Field Cadre. It was also agreed that he will be placed at
the tail end of the seniority list of UDC in the Head Office Cadre. Further,
the petitioner has also undertaken to forego all the special allowances and
other benefits attached with the post of UDC (Field Cadre), which is
otherwise not permissible in the Head Office Cadre post.
11. Admittedly, the petitioner joined in the Head Office Cadre on
24.08.2007 and for the first time he agitated his claims by filing CWP-
26850-2016. As such, it is evident that the petitioner remained indolent for
nine years. Thus, the argument that some of the juniors had been brought to
the cadre of Head Office while the case of the petitioner was kept pending,
is of no consequence as the Constitution does not propagate the idea of
negative equality. A two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State
of Orissa vs. Mamata Mohanty (2011)3 SCC, speaking through Dr. Justice
B.S. Chauhan, held as follows:
"It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not
meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage
CWP-20439-2022
negative equality. Thus, even if some other similarly
situated persons have been granted some benefit
inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer
any legal right on the petitioner to get the same
relief. [Vide State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Jagjit
Singh; Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi); Anand
Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana; K.K.Bhatia v. State of
M.P.; Krishan Bhatt v. State of J & K; State of Bihar v.
Upendra Narayan Singh; Union of India v. Kartick
Chandra Mondal.]"
10. Similary the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v.
M. K. Sarkar, (2010)2 SCC 59 has laid down that "Article 14
is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative
manner. Irregularity and illegality cannot be perpetuated on
the ground that illegal benefits have been extended to
others". Thus, if some similarly situated persons have been
granted some benefit by mistake, such an order does not
confer any legal right on the petitioner to stake claim. ..."
(emphasis added)
12. In view of the facts peculiar and circumstances of the present
case, the present petition is dismissed being bereft of merit. However, with
no order as to costs.
13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
21.04.2026
Parul Verma
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
