[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jeevan Kumar vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ... on 22 January, 2026

                                           1

CWP-12770
    12770-2025 and connected cases




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

248(4 cases)
                                               Date of Decision: January 22,, 2026

(1)                                                CWP-12770-2025 (O&M)

Gaurav Goyal
                                                                     .....Petitioner

                                      VERSUS

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
                                                                      ..Respondents


(2)                                                CWP-20213-2025

Binnu Goyal
                                                                     .....Petitioner

                                      VERSUS

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
                                                                      ..Respondents


(3)                                            CWP
                                               CWP-20232-2025

Avinash Chawla
                                                                     .....Petitioner

                                      VERSUS

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
                                                                      ..Respondents




                                  1 of 7
               ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2026 08:07:32 :::
                                           2

CWP-12770
    12770-2025 and connected cases




(4)                                           CWP
                                              CWP-33016-2025

Jeevan Kumar
                                                                .....Petitioner

                                     VERSUS

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
                                                                 ..Respondents



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present :   Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel,, Advocate
                                    Advocates for the petitioners in all
            cases.
            Mr. Pradeep Sharma and Ms. Mehak Kanwar, Advocate for the
            respondent(s)-PSPCL
                          PSPCL in all cases.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
               BRAR J. (Oral)

1. This common order shall dispose of the aforementioned civil

writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the

sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP CWP-12770-2025

2. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article

226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature

of certiorari ertiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure

P-11) and 03.05.2024 (Annexure P-5) P whereby the request of petitioner for

voluntary reversion from the post of Superintendent Divisional Accounts to

Upper Division Clerk (AC) was rejected. A Further prayer is made seeking

directions to the respondents to reconsider the claim of petitioner and grant

him voluntary reversion/demotion.

reversion/demotion

2 of 7

CWP-12770 12770-2025 and connected cases

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, tioner, inter alia, contends that the

petitioner joined oined the service of respondents respondents-Corporation as Upper Division

Clerk (UDC) Accounts on 19.09.2016 and he has been performing his duties

without any complaint of any kind. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted

to the post of Superintendent Divisional Accounts subject to completion of

probation period of one year in terms of Regulation 11 of PSEB Accounts

Service Class-III Class Regulation, 1991,, vide promotion orde orderr dated 04.10.2023

(Annexure P-1).

P Learned earned counsel further submits that the petitioner is

suffering from a chronic ailment, namely Aortic Stenosis, on account of

which he has undergone surgery for replacement of his aortic valve valve. He has

been under continuous continuous medical treatment at Rajindra Hospital as well as

Amar Hospital, Patiala, as is evident from Annexure P P-3.

3. It is further

submitted that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the medical

condition of the petitioner deteriorated further and he was even admitted to

the ICU. The petitioner had sought reversion to his lower post in view of his

medical condition by submitting a representation (Annexure P-4)

4) in January,

2024.. However, the said request was declined by the respondents on the

ground that at there were no instructions or policy regarding reversion to a

lower post and the file was consigned to record vide impugned order dated

03.05.2024 (Annexure P-5).

P 5). In the meantime, the petitioner came to know

that a large number of similarly situated emp employees had also sought

reversion and some of such requests were accepted by the respondents.

Learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate

3 of 7

CWP-12770 12770-2025 and connected cases

Bench of this Court in CWP No. 23153 of 2023, Jagtar Singh vs. Punjab

State Power Corporation others,, decided on 13.12.2023 Corporation Limited and others

(Annexure P-18), P 18), wherein a similar objection raised by the respondents, respondents

regarding absence of any policy for reversion reversion, was rejected and directions

were issued to consider the claim of the petitioner therein seeking voluntary

reversion. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment dated 04.10.2024

passed in CWP No. 25341 of 2024, Chetan Kumar vs. Punjab State Power

n Limited and others (Annexure P Corporation P-20).

20). It is submitted that in

both the aforesaid cases, voluntary reversion was allowed by the

respondents. In view of the medical condition of the petitioner, his case

deserves reconsideration consideration in the light of the aforesaid judgments.

4. Per contra,, learned counsel for the respondents submits that a

total of 38 employees were promoted to the post of Superintendent

Divisional Accounts from October, 2023 onwards, out of whom 17

employees had decided to forgo the said promotio promotion.. Likewise, during the

period from January, 2024 to March, 2025, 27 employees have forgone their

promotion. It is contended that acceptance of a large number of reversion

requests has the potential to adversely affect the administrative structure of

the respondent espondent-Corporation. It is further submitted that if employees are

permitted either to forgo promotions or seek reversions at their convenience,

it would create serious hurdles in the effective functioning of the

respondent--Corporation, Corporation, adversely affecting public interest and

administrative efficiency. The plea of discrimination raised by the petitioner

4 of 7

CWP-12770 12770-2025 and connected cases

is stated to be misconceived. A conscious policy decision has been taken by

the respondent-Corporation respondent in this regard and vide instructions dated

25.05.2025, it has been decided that no request for voluntary reversion shall

be allowed until a comprehensive policy is formulated.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record with their able assistance. It emerges that, in the absence

of any existing existing policy or instructions governing voluntary reversion, the

respondent--Corporation Corporation has taken a conscious administrative decision not to

entertain any such requests until a policy is framed. The said decision,

reflected in the instructions dated 25.05.20 25.05.2025, 25, is aimed at maintaining

operational efficiency and ensuring smooth functioning of the respondent-

respondent

Corporation, particularly when the post of Superintendent Divisional

Accounts is a sensitive revenue-related related post.

6. Permitting voluntary reversions in the absence of a policy is

likely to cause administrative and operational disruption. In the facts and

circumstances of the present case, the petitioner cannot claim parity or

benefit of the judgments rendered in Jagtar S Singh and Chetan Kumar

(supra),, as those cases were decided on their own facts prior to issuance of

the aforesaid instructions. As such, this Court finds no merit in the plea of

discrimination raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. Moreover, A two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in State of Orissa vs. Mamata Mohanty (2011)3 SCC 436 has clarified that

5 of 7

CWP-12770 12770-2025 and connected cases

Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not perpetuate negative equality.

Speaking through Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan, the following was held:

"It It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage 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 n not ot confer any legal right on the petitioner to stake claim. ..."

(emphasis added)

8. Until a policy is framed, the administrative instructions

restraining acceptance of reversion requests cannot be faulted. Accordingly,

this Court finds no ground to interfere in the impugned order and all three

writ petition(s) petition are dismissed being devoid of merit. However, keeping in

view the medical medical condition of the petitioner petitioner-Sh.

Sh. Gourav Goyal, the

respondent--Corporation Corporation is directed to consider his request for transf transfer er to

Patiala sympathetically, sympathetically in accordance with law. A decision in this regard

shall be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a

6 of 7

CWP-12770 12770-2025 and connected cases