Disposed¶21

Mukesh Yadav v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jul 2026CWP/21123/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Service law; denial/withholding of promotion to Accounts Officer w.e.f. 31.12.2024 despite no disciplinary proceedings, juniors promoted; representation dated 13.01.2025 pending before respondent No.1; writ petition disposed of with direction to decide representation by speaking and reasoned order within six months; no opinion expressed on entitlement; competent authority to decide independently per applicable rules; Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; Nidhi Gupta, J.; decided 15.07.2026; no statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent(s)/authority to consider and decide the representation dated 13.1.2025 (Annexure P-3) by passing a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law within six months from receipt of a certified copy of the order; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of

Mukesh Yadav Vs State of Haryana — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, denied promotion to the post of Accounts Officer w.e.f. 31.12.2024 despite no disciplinary proceedings or other legal impediment against him while his juniors were promoted, is entitled to promotion with consequential benefits (point expressly left open by this Court) +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

The Court made clear it had not expressed any opinion on the petitioner's entitlement to the claimed benefit; the competent authority shall take an independent decision in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent(s)/authority to consider and decide the representation dated 13.1.2025 (Annexure P-3) by passing a speaking and reasoned order, in accordance with law, within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order; pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Nidhi Gupta, J.), CWP No.21123 of 2026 (O & M), decided 15.07.2026 — Mukesh Yadav v. State of Haryana and others: Civil writ petition seeking certiorari against the respondents' action in withholding the petitioner's promotion to the post of Accounts Officer w.e.f. 31.12.2024 despite no disciplinary proceedings or other legal impediment, while his juniors were promoted, and mandamus for promotion with consequential benefits (seniority, pay fixation, arrears) and disposal of his representation dated 13.01.2025. Counsel for the petitioner confined the prayer to a decision on the pending representation (Annexure P-3). Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court disposed of the petition directing respondent(s)/authority to consider and decide the representation dated 13.1.2025 by a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law within six months from receipt of a certified copy of the order, expressly clarifying that the competent authority shall take an independent decision per applicable rules and regulations; pending applications stood disposed of. Merits of the promotion claim were left open.

¶1

CWP-21123-2026 (O & M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

107

¶5

CWP No.21123 of 2026 (O & M) Date of decision :-15.07.2026

Mukesh Yadav

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶10

…..Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶12

Present:Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

¶14

Prayer in the present Civil W rit Petition is for issuance of a writ of Certiorari quashing the a c tion of the respondents in withhold i ng the petitioner's promotion to the post of Accounts Officer w.e.f. 31.12.2024 , despite t h ere being no disciplinary proceedi n gs or other legal impediment a gainst him, while promoting his junio r s; further issuance of a writ o f Mandamus directing the responde n ts to promote the petitioner as Accounts Officer w.e.f. 31.12.2024 , with all consequential ben e fits including seniority, pay fixation, a rrears of salary and other ad m issible service benefits. It is also prayed that respondent No.1 be dir e cted to consider and decide the peti t ioner's pending representati o n dated 13.01.2025 and subseque n t reminders/legal notice by pas s ing a reasoned and speaking order wit h in a stipulated period.

¶15

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.15 18.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

¶17

CWP-21123-2026 (O & M)

¶18

At the outset, learned coun s el for the petitioner submits that the p etitioner would be satisfied, a t this stage, if a direction is issued to respondent(s)/authority to cons i der and decide the aforesaid represent a tion dated 13.1.2025 (Annexu r e P-3), which is stated to be pending c onsideration before respondent N o.1.

¶19

Notice of motion.

¶20

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G. Haryana accepts notice and has no objection in case the limi t ed prayer made by learned counsel f o r the petitioner is accepted.

¶21

Without expressing any o p inion on the merits of the claim rai s ed by the petitioner, and in vie w of the limited relief sought, the pres e nt writ petition is dispose d of with a direction to responde n t(s)/authority to consider an d decide the representation dated 13.1.2025 (Annexure P-3) by passing a speaking and reasoned order, in a ccordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this o rder.

¶22

It is made clear that this C ourt has not expressed any opinion o n the entitlement of the petition e r to the claimed benefit, and the com p etent authority shall take a n independent decision in accordan c e with the applicable rules and r egulations. Pe n ding application(s), if any, shal l also stand disposed of.

¶23

July 15, 2 026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

¶24

Whether sp e aking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Re p ortable Yes / No

¶25

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.15 18.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mukesh Yadav v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Yadav v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Renu Saini and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sunehri Devi Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Parveen Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Dharmender Sharma and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Himanshu Goyal and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others