Disposed¶37

Mam Chand Gupta v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC5 May 2025CWP/14733/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common disposal of CWP-14733-2000 (Mam Chand Gupta) and CWP-17637-2000 (V.K. Jain) v State of Haryana: refixation of inter se seniority, Class-II Mechanical Wing, PWD (B&R), roster point No.24 to Gurminder Singh, superannuated petitioners, protection of benefits already disbursed, recovery post-superannuation debatable, interim order 10.12.2004 conformed, representation by respondent No.3 within 04 months; petitions disposed, not decided on seniority.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 10.12.2004 conformed in favour of the petitioners; benefits already released to the petitioners remain protected; respondent No.3 permitted to submit a representation for any benefits claimed, to be decided by the respondents in a time-bound manner, preferably within 04 months. ¶37

Mam Chand Gupta Vs State of Haryana — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the State's refixation of inter se seniority in Class-II (Mechanical Wing) of Public Works (B&R) Department and the resulting roster point allocations (No.24 to respondent No.3 Gurminder Singh, No.32 to petitioner M.C. Gupta, No.7 to petitioner V.K. Jain) were justified, as challenged by both petitioners. +1 more

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Having served and completed his tenure on the promoted post under the interim orders and superannuated therefrom, the petitioner has a right to claim the financial benefits against the post on which he actually discharged his duties; recovery of financial benefits post-superannuation may be highly debatable against the State, making further contest at this stage predominantly academic.

¶31

Key takeaways

Without prejudice to the rights of respondent No.3, the writ petitions are disposed of by conforming the interim order dated 10.12.2004 in favour of the petitioner; benefits already released shall remain protected; respondent No.3 may submit a representation for any benefits he feels entitled to, and the respondents shall take a considered decision thereon preferably within 04 months of its submission.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J) disposes of two 2000 writ petitions challenging the State of Haryana's order dated 12.10.2000 refixing inter se seniority in Class-II (Mechanical Wing) of Public Works (B&R) Department, under which Roster point No.24 went to respondent No.3 Gurminder Singh, No.32 to petitioner M.C. Gupta and No.7 to petitioner V.K. Jain. With the petitioners having served their full tenure on the promoted posts under interim protection and superannuated, the court holds they are entitled to the financial benefits of the posts on which they actually worked, recovery post-superannuation being highly debatable; it conforms the interim order dated 10.12.2004 and protects benefits already disbursed, leaving respondent No.3 free to seek any entitlements by representation, to be decided preferably within four months.

¶1

CWP-14733-2000 (O&M) and CWP-17637-2000 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

207

¶5

Date of Decision: 05.05.2025.

¶6

(1) CWP-14733-2000 (O&M)

¶7

MAM CHAND GUPTA

¶8

... Petitioner(s) Versus

¶9

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

¶10

... Respondent(s) ***

¶11

(2) CWP-17637-2000 (O&M)

¶12

V. K. JAIN

¶13

... Petitioner(s) Versus

¶14

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.05.12 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CWP-14733-2000 (O&M) and CWP-17637-2000 (O&M)

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.

¶19

PRESENT : Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

¶20

Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG, Haryana.

¶21

Mr. Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Advocate, with Mr. Gaurav Jagota, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶22

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J (ORAL)

¶23

Involving identical issues, both these writ petitions are being decided by a common order.

¶24

2 A brief eye-view of the controversy involved in the present writ petitions is however, extracted from CWP-14733-2000 titled as ‘Mam Chand Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and others.’

¶25

3 The petitioner had challenged the order dated 12.10.2000 whereby the respondent State decided to refix the inter se seniority in Class-II (Mechanical Wing) of Public Works (B&R) Department and dismissed the representation submitted by Mr. M.C. Gupta (petitioner in CWP No.14733 of 2000) and Mr. V.K. Jain (petitioner in CWP No.17637 of 2000). Roster point No.24 was accordingly granted to the respondent No.3 Sh.Gurminder Singh while petitioner-M.C. Gupta (petitioner in CWP No.14733 of 2000) was granted Roster point No.32 and Mr. V.K. Jain (petitioner in CWP No.17637 of 2000) was granted Roster point No.7.

¶26

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.05.12 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CWP-14733-2000 (O&M) and CWP-17637-2000 (O&M)

¶28

4 An undertaking was given by the State counsel on 06.02.2001 to the effect that the petitioner was not likely to be reverted till the next date of hearing. The writ petition was thus admitted vide order dated 15.07.2002 and the said undertaking was ordered to continue till the pendency of the said petition. It seems that the respondents did initiate the process of reversion of the petitioner at a later stage, however, even the said order was stayed.

¶29

5 Be that as it may, there was no interim order granted against assigning the roster point No.24 to respondent No.3.

¶30

6 Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) contends that since the petitioner(s) have already superannuated, he has instructions not to press the instant writ petition any further in case the benefits already disbursed to the petitioner(s) are protected.

¶31

7 Learned State counsel is not in a position to dispute that owing to the interim order and on account of the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has served and completed his tenure and has superannuated from the promoted post. He is also not in a position to controvert that the petitioner would thus have a right to claim the financial benefits against the post where he actually discharged his duties and recovery of financial benefits, post superannuation, may be highly debatable against the State. Hence, the exercise at this stage is predominantly academic considering

¶32

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.05.12 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

CWP-14733-2000 (O&M) and CWP-17637-2000 (O&M)

¶34

-4-

¶35

that the petitioner may otherwise be justified in claiming that having served on the substantive post for the entire duration, he is entitled to actual benefits against the said post.

¶36

8 Without prejudice to the rights of respondent No.3 if any, the present writ petitions are disposed of at this stage by conforming the interim order dated 10.12.2004 in favour of the petitioner. The benefits which have already been released to the petitioner shall remain protected. Respondent No.3 may, if so advised, submit a representation to the respondent authorities for claiming the benefits, if any to which he feels entitled to. The respondents shall thereafter take a considered decision on such a representation, in a time bound manner, and preferably within a period of 04 months of submission of such a representation.

¶37

9 Both the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶38

10 Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of accordingly.

¶39

11 A photocopy of the order be placed on the connected

¶40

file(s).

¶41

May 05, 2025. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) raj arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶42

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.05.12 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document