Jaswinder Singh Vs Manjit Singh Brar and Others

Present contempt petition has b een filed alleging violation of order dat e d 07.8.2025 (Annexure P-1) pas s ed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Cour t in CWP-22784-2025 titled as “ Jaswinder Singh vs. State of Punjab an d others”, whereby it was observe d and directed as follows :-

¶17

“xxx xxx xxx 10. In view of the a f oresaid judgment rendered by the Division Bench of th is Court, wherein it has been held that even after reti r ement, an employee is entitled to be considered for notional promotion, present petition is allowed and the impugned order (Annexure P-5), rejecting the clai m of the petitioner, is hereby set aside. Accordingly, re s pondent No.3 is directed to consider case of the pe t itioner for notional promotion

¶18

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.03.19 09.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

COCP-1162-2026 (O & M) 2

¶20

to the post of Trust Engineer (Horticulture), in accordance with law.

¶21

11. It is made clear that if the petitioner is found suitable to be promote d to the post of Trust Engineer (Horticulture), he be promoted to the said post notionally and other b enefits accruing therefrom be granted to him, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certifi e d copy of this order. xxx xxx xxx”

¶22

To give a brief background o f the case, the petitioner had filed the i n stant writ petition seeking writ of certiorari for quashing of order dated 07. 7 .2025, whereby the claim of the p e titioner for notional promotion as Trust Engineer had been rejected. V ide Writ Court order dated 07.8.2025 the said order was set aside and i t was further directed that case of the pet i tioner be considered and “if the p e titioner is found suitable” then the petitio n er be promoted to the post of Tru s t Engineer (Horticulture). Learned counsel for the petiti o ner submits that in pursuance to the Wr i t Court order, an order dated 10.3 . 2026 (Annexure P-3) has been passed w h ereby case of the petitioner for notional promotion has been rejected b y placing reliance on the judgmen t of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of West Bengal and others vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi and others ( D iary No.43488 of 2023). L e arned counsel contends that suitability of the petitioner as directed by th e Writ Court and as was bound to be co n sidered by the respondents has not been considered. It is contende d that the said judgment of the Ho n ’ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the resp o ndents vehemently oppose the submissio n s advanced on behalf of the peti t ioner and submit that the case of the pet i tioner has been duly considered a n d thereafter a Speaking Order dated 10. 3 .2026 (Annexure P-3) has been p a ssed. Learned counsel for the

¶23

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.03.19 09.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

3

¶25

COCP-1162-2026 (O & M)

¶26

responde n ts refer to para Nos.5 and 6 of t he said order dated 10.3.2026 (Annexur e P-3), which read as under :-

¶27

“5. For compliance of the above orders, the Government referred t h e matter to the office of the Advocate General, P u njab for legal opinion. The Advocate General's o ff ice has given the following comments:

¶28

In order to appr e ciate the controversy involved, reference may b e made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Suprem e Court in Government of West Bengal & others vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & others (Diary No. 4348 8 of 2023), wherein the Hon'ble Court observed:

¶29

W h ile the respondent has a right to be co n sidered for promotion under Articles 1 4 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, h e does not have an absolute right to promotion itself. Promotion becomes effective only when the employee assumes duties on the promotio n al post, and not from the date of occ u rrence of vacancy or recomme n dation. Since the respondent had super a nnuated before the promotion was effe c ted, he is not entitled to retrospec t ive financial benefits of the promotio n al post. Th e refore, relying on the above judgment, it can be concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to the claim, particula r ly when he did not assume duties on t he promotional post, as he had already r etired before the sanctioned post wa s given effect to by the Departme n t. 6 Since till the r etirement of the officer on 31.05.2024 the post o f Trust Engineer (Horticulture) did not exist in the Trust Service Rules, 2015, the legal notice dated 15.11.2024 regarding grant of notional promotion to the post o f Trust Engineer (Horticulture) was considered by t h e competent authority and filed/closed. In view of the legal opinion given by the Advocate General, Pu n jab, the claim made by Sh. Jaswinder Singh, Assistant Trust Engineer

¶30

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.03.19 09.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

COCP-1162-2026 (O & M) 4

¶32

(Horticulture) (Retired ) regarding promotion is not found to be admissible/ c onsiderable.”

¶33

It is contended that, accordin g ly, the order of the Writ Court stands dul y complied with in letter and spirit.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel f o r the parties and gone through

¶35

the record.

¶36

In view of the submissions m a de by learned counsel for the responde n ts and the aforementioned para s 5 and 6 of the order dated 10.3.2026 (Annexure P-3) as reproduced ab o ve, the Writ Court order dated 07.8.2025 (Annexure P-1) stands duly comp l ied with, therefore, the present contempt p etition stands dismissed .

¶37

Rule stands discharged.

¶38

Needless to say, if the petiti o ner is aggrieved of the order dated 10. 3 .2026 (Annexure P-3), it is ope n for him to seek appropriate remedy as per law.

¶39

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of.

¶40

March 16, 2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

¶41

Whether s p eaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether R e portable Yes / No

¶42

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.03.19 09.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jaswinder Singh v. Manjit Singh Brar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaswinder Singh v. Manjit Singh Brar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kapil Singla Vs Deepali Gupta and Ors.

Ram Phal and Anr. Vs Dalbir Singh and Ors.

Raj Kumar Vs Suman Devi and Others

Tilak Raj Vs Darshan Singh and Ors.

Sukhjinder Singh Vs the State of Punjab through Its Special Secretary

Bishan Dass Vs Munish Kumar Garg