LPA-1998-2016 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (101+205) CM-4078-LPA-2025 CM-4125-LPA-2016 CM-4126-LPA-2016 CM-4127-LPA-2016 CM-719-LPA-2018 in/and LPA-1998-2016 Date of Decision : July 20, 2026 Bhakra Beas Management Board and others .. Appellants Versus Akhilesh Kumar Roy .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Pawan K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL) CM-4125-LPA-2016 Present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 15 days in filing the appeal. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay of 15 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM-4126-LPA-2016 Present application has been filed for placing on record Annexures A-1 and A-2 and further seeking exemption from filing the certified copies of the same. HARSHA RANI 2026.07.27 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1998-2016 (O&M) 2 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Annexures A- 1 and A-2 are taken on record. LPA-1998-2016 (O&M) 1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 20782 of 2012 wherein, the writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed so as to consider him in the cadre of Peon from the date of his initial appointment as a Mali for further promotion to the post of Clerk. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that respondent was appointed as Mali on 18.01.2000 and he was working as a Mali when he gave a representation that his cadre be changed from that of Mali to Peon and he will not claim any seniority after the grant of such change of cadre and be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of the Peon. Along with an application, he also submitted an affidavit to the said effect. Keeping in view the said request, vide order dated 24.08.2007 (Annexure A-1), the respondent’s cadre was changed from Mali to Peon on the condition that he would not claim any benefit of service on the post of Mali and will also not claim any other benefit admissible in the cadre of Mali while working in the cadre of Peon. Further, even the respondent was promoted to the post of Clerk on 24.03.2009 however, vide order dated 30.03.2010, the promotion was withdrawn and the respondent was reverted to the post of Peon on the ground that his promotion was contrary to Para 13 of the Notification dated 24.06.1994. HARSHA RANI 2026.07.27 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1998-2016 (O&M) 3 3. Thereafter, the petitioner (respondent herein) filed a writ petition claiming that he should be treated as working in the cadre of Peon from the date he was appointed as a Mali and he should also be granted said promotion to the post of Clerk as the persons who are appointed in the cadre of Peon after his date of appointment as a Mali are being granted the benefit which benefit has been extended by the learned Single Judge. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that in the absence of any challenge to the order dated 24.08.2007 (Annexure A-1) by which he was brought in the cadre of Peon from the said date, has been ignored by the learned Single Judge while granting the relief. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that even if, the order dated 24.08.2007 (Annexure A-1) granting the benefit of change of cadre was not challenged but as under the Bhakra Beas Management Board Class III and Class IV Employees Regulations, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1994 Regulations’), the respondent is entitled for the benefit of counting his seniority from the date of his initial appointment and merely the change of cadre cannot wash away his previous seniority so as to claim the benefit admissible for promotion to the post of Clerk. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge is valid and may kindly be upheld. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 8. Once, it is a conceded position before this Court that a representation was made by the respondent for the change of his cadre from HARSHA RANI 2026.07.27 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1998-2016 (O&M) 4 Mali to Peon with the undertaking that he will not claim seniority and any benefit qua the working on the post of Mali and thereafter, an order was passed on 24.08.2007 (Annexure A-1) changing his cadre from Mali to that of Peon with the condition that he will be posted at the bottom of the seniority, the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the said order/undertaking while granting the relief. Once, the order granting the change of cadre was with the condition and such condition was not under challenge, treating the seniority from the date he was appointed in the cadre of Mali to be reflected even while working in the cadre of Peon so as to grant him further promotion as Clerk, was not at all correct. 9. Even otherwise, the said issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.8017 of 2003 titled as Union of India and others vs. Deo Narain and others, decided on 15.09.2008 wherein, it has been held that employees transferred from one Collectorate to another on their own request, subject to the condition that they would forgo their seniority and be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the transferee Collectorate, cannot subsequently raise any grievance if employees placed above them in the seniority list are considered for promotion. The Court categorically held that such transferees cannot claim seniority over the employees of the transferee Collectorate and further observed that the High Court erred in equating eligibility with seniority. Accordingly, the respondents, having accepted transfer on the aforesaid condition, are bound by the consequences thereof and cannot claim promotion in derogation of the settled seniority position. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment are as under:- HARSHA RANI 2026.07.27 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1998-2016 (O&M) 5 “ 34. In our opinion, Renu Mullick also supports the view which we are inclined to take, namely, that an employee who is transferred to other Collectorate does not lose his/her past service for the purpose of considering his/her eligibility. But, if such transfer is voluntary or unilateral on condition that he/she will be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the transferee Department, the said condition would bind him/her and he/she cannot claim seniority over the employees in the transferee Department. 35. Finally, in Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri & Anr. v. V.M. Joseph, (1998) 5 SCC 305, again, a similar view has been taken by this Court. It was held that if the eligibility condition requires certain length of service, service rendered in another organization before unilateral transfer at own request cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority. But it must be counted for determining eligibility for promotion. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Moreover, the applicants opted for voluntary and unilateral transfer foregoing their seniority and joined Meerut Collectorate with open eyes and were placed below all LDCs who were serving in the said Collectorate. It was, therefore, not open to them to make grievance if LDCs shown above them in the seniority list are considered for promotion to the cadre of LDC. Thus, neither law nor equity supports the so-called claim of the applicants.” 10. After the change of cadre, the appointment of the respondent in the cadre of Peon has to be treated from 24.08.2007 (Annexure A-1) only and not on the date when he was appointed as Mali. The order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge is perverse to the facts on record and hence, cannot be accepted. HARSHA RANI 2026.07.27 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1998-2016 (O&M) 6 11. Keeping in view the above, the order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition filed by the petitioner (respondent herein) is dismissed. 12. The present appeal is allowed in above terms. 13. Civil miscellaneous application pending if any, also stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE July 20, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) harsha JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No HARSHA RANI 2026.07.27 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document