Paramjit Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others

i. A writ in the nature of Certiorari for the quashing o f wrongfully re-fixation o f the dates qua the length o f service of the petitio n er without giving him an y opportunity of hearing or giving him any notice bu t conducting the exercise absolutely arbitrarily an d unilaterally.

¶15

ii. A writ in the nature of Certiorari for the quashing o f Issuing wrongful order d a ted 15/12/2023 (Annexure P 5 ) ordering the dates of gr a nt of 9 year and 16 year AC P scales which were grant e d way back to the petitioner o n account of the above sai d wrongful exercise of unilatera l an arbitrary re-fixation of the dates regarding the lengt h of service of the petitione r .

¶16

VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.24 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶17

CWP-636-2024 (O&M)

¶18

(2)

¶19

iii. A writ in the nature of Certiorari for the quashing o f Wrongful action of the respondent corporation in th e unilaterally withdrawin g the grant of the benefit o f granting of annual incre m ents to the petitioner after th e year 2019 (the last ann u al increment being granted t o him being on 01/04/2019 ) .

¶20

iv. A writ in the nature of Certiorari for the quashing o f wrongful action of the re s pondent corporation in keepin g with the leave applica t ion of the petitioner pendin g indefinitely despite the l e ave having been applied by th e petitioner in line with the order passed by the responden t corporation itself (Ann e xure P-3) after the wrongfu l punishment granted by the respondent corporation o f stoppage of 3 annual inc r ements having been done awa y by the respondent corpor a tion itself in appeal.

¶21

v. A direction to the respon d ent corporation in releasing al l financial benefits to th e petitioner which have bee n scuttled illegally by vi r tue of the above said illega l actions of the responden t corporation along with interes t at the rate of 18% on ac c ount of delayed payment of th e same.

¶22

While issuing notice of motio n , vide order dated 12.01.2024 ,

¶23

this Court p a ssed the following order:

¶24

“Learned counsel for th e petitioner inter alia contend s that initially the petitioner w a s inflicted the punishment o f stoppage of three annual incre m ents with cumulative effect vid e order dated 09.04.2021 and th e suspension period was treate d as non-duty period. However, o n appeal filed by the petitioner, the said punishment has be e n converted to censure an d thereafter the petitioner ha s submitted representation t o regularise the suspension p eriod from 01.07.2019 t o 20.10.2019 and the said representation has been accepted an d

¶25

VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.24 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶26

CWP-636-2024 (O&M)

¶27

(3)

¶28

the suspension period has been treated as leave of the kind due. However, his annual incremen t s have not been released afte r 01.04.2019 and the dates of gra n t of ACP on completion of 9/1 6 y ears of service have been changed from 16.01.1996 t o 19.09.1997 and 16.01.2003 t o 19.09.2004 vide order date d 15.12.2023 (Annexure P-5) wi t hout affording any opportunit y of hearing to the petitioner whi c h is in violation of principles o f natural justice.

¶29

Notice of motion returna b le on 12.03.2024.

¶30

Ms. Amandeep Kaur, A d vocate, for Ms. Eknoor Kau r Sara, Advocate, has caused appearance on behalf of th e respondents and has filed mem o of appearance, which is take n on record. She undertakes to fil e power of attorney on behalf o f the respondents in the registry b efore the next date of hearing. In the meanwhile, operat i on of the impugned order date d 15.12.2023 (Annexure P-5) shall remain stayed till the nex t date of hearing.

¶31

Written statement, if any , be filed on or before the nex t date of hearing with advance c opy to the learned counsel fo r the petitioner.”

¶32

Short reply on behalf of the re s pondents-PSPCL has been file d by way of a n affidavit of Additional SE E r . Amrinder Singh, Focal Poin t Division, PS P CL, Ludhiana, wherein it has b een stated as under:

¶33

“6. That it is imperative to mentio n that the Non Duty period ha s now been cleared by Dy. Sec y , PSPCL, Patiala office orde r no.50 dated 18.08.2023 (Anne x ure P-3) and leave has alread y been passed by CE/Op, Cent r al Zone, Ludhiana vide offic e order no.54 dated 02.02.2024. C opy of order dated 02.02.202 4 is Annexed as Annexure R/1.

¶34

7. That it is further imperative to mention that it is annua l increment has already been gr a nted to present petitioner upt o 01.04.2024.

¶35

VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.24 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶36

CWP-636-2024 (O&M)

¶37

(4)

¶38

8. That the contents of the instant writ petition are false, frivolou s and vexatious and the same is thus liable to be dismissed o n this ground alone.

¶39

9. That it is humble submitted t h at office of AO/EAD, Patial a raised objection for giving in c rements during Boy's Servic e (Under age of 18 years) of peti t ioner through their office mem o no. 2865 dated 05.04.2023 and 5221 dated 21.06.2023. And a s p er instruction mentioned in M SR-Vol-1(Part-1) Note Unde r Rule 4.7 because of Boy Servic e office of AO/EAD, Patiala ha s written a letter to withdraw/re v ised annual increment wrongl y given to petitioner. It is further clarified that as per instructio n mentioned in Punjab CSR Ch ap ter-III (Service Qualifying fo r Pension) Clause no. 3.9

¶40

"Except for compensati o n gratuity, an officer's servic e does not qualify till he h as completed eighteen years o f age, provided that nothi n g contained in this rule shal l apply in the case of p e rsons who were in service o n 01.06.1961 and whose case a lower age limit i s prescribed"

¶41

10. That As per the above, Salary of the petitioner is revised b y taking effect of Boy Service fro m 16.01.1987 and get Pre Audi t f rom AO/Field, Ludhiana. After reducing the time period of Bo y Service, 9 year time bound s c ale is given from 19.09.199 7 instead of 16.01.1009 and 16 y ear time bound scale is give n f rom 19.09.2004 instead of 16. 0 1.2003.

¶42

11. That as per letter no. 5064 dated 19.06.2024 of Sr. Account s Officer EAD, Patiala clarified t hat as per memo No. 745 date d 30.09.2002 a similar case of S m t. Suman Bala,

¶43

"The job was given to th e employee by relaxing the rule s by relaxing the minimum age of recruitment of 18 year s due to non-availability o f daily bread in their homes, hence the condition was mentioned in the appointmen t letter that Service of les s than 18 years of age shall no t

¶44

VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.24 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶45

CWP-636-2024 (O&M)

¶46

(5)

¶47

be counted for pension, but if the employees service o f less that 18 years of ag e is given for increment or pos e on the next scale, then he (the employee) shall be eligibl e for this period(before ag e of 18 years' time) the benefit o f annual increment/promo t ions scales received will als o automatically accrue to p ension due to increase in pa y which is contrary to the c ondition laid down in the lette r of appointment this the employee is not entitled to th e benefit of service before t h e age of 18 years.

¶48

12. That the advice by Finance de p artment that annual promotio n is admissible to the employee 1 year after the completion of 1 8 y ears of age as per MSR Vol - I PART 1 Regulation 4.7, it i s clear from this that when this time if not counted for annua l p romotion (before the age of 1 8 years) then this is not to b e counted for promotion scale als o .

¶49

13. That therefore it is it is humbly c oncluded that as per the above, A O/EAD Patiala vide memo n o. 2865 dated 05.04.2023 an d memo no. 5221 dated 21.06.20 2 3 reflecting instruction in MS R I V part-1 under rule 4.7 and D y . Secy/Non-Gazzeted-2. PSPCL, Patiala memo no. 374 dated 12 . 06.2024, it is clearly mentione d that during Boy Service, Servi c e will not be counted toward s qualifying service for annual i n crement and time bound scale. So following the same instructi o ns of Punjab Civil Service Rule, Vol-II, 3.9, the previous years g r anted annual increment as wel l as time bund scale has been r evised and office order date d 12.02.1997 and 09.08.2004 is w ithdrawn which was approve d by Pre-Audit authority AO/Fi e ld, PSPCL Ludhiana in whic h also clear instruction is to start the recovery from th e p etitioner, yet till date no recovery is made from th e p etitioner.”

¶50

The first two claims of th e petitioner, i.e. treating th e suspension as duty period and grant of annu a l increment, have been accede d

¶51

VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.24 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶52

CWP-636-2024 (O&M)

¶53

(6)

¶54

to by the res p ondents. Thus, the only claim w hich survives for consideratio n is with rega r d to change in dates of grant of ACP on completion of 9/1 6 years of service, vide order dated 15.12.202 3 (Annexure P-5). 5. The impugned order dated 1 5 .12.2023 (Annexure P-5) wa s passed by e x cluding the petitioner’s ‘boy s ervice period’ from qualifyin g service, ther e by, altering the dates of his e n titlement to the ACP benefits . Since the sa i d order adversely affected the p etitioner’s service benefits an d was passed w ithout affording an opportunit y of hearing, the same is in clea r violation o f principles of natural justi c e and cannot be sustained . Accordingly , the impugned order is set aside. However, th e respondents/ P SPCL shall be at liberty to a c t in accordance with law afte r following th e due procedure and in conform i ty with the principles of natura l justice.

¶55

6. Disposed of in the above terms.

¶56

(NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE

¶57

22.07.2026

¶58

Vimal

¶59

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶60

VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.24 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Paramjit Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramjit Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mohan Lal Vs State of Punjab and Another

Asi Lr Ashwani Kumar and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

The Punjab State Agricultural Cooperative Societies Employees Union Punjab Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Davinder Pal Vs State of Punjab and Others

C.S. Virk Vs Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation & Anr.