CWP-15580-2001 (O&M) 1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 202 CWP-15580-2001 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.07.2026 Partap Singh ...Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- None for the petitioner. Harish Kumar Nain, D.A.G., Haryana, *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 1.10.1999 (Annexure P/1) vide which the respondent has declined the claim of the petitioner for 1st Higher Standard Pay Scale which is due from 1.1.1994; AND a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the 1st Higher Standard Pay Scale to the completion of petitioner on 10 years regular satisfactory service with all other consequential benefits alongwith pay fixation, arrears of salary, and other benefits. 2. Order sheets show that despite notice, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner on the last 3 dates of hearing i.e. on 19.05.2025, 25.08.2025 and 27.04.2026. As such, the present matter, being of the DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15580-2001 (O&M) 2 of 6 year 2001, is being heard and decided in the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Perusal of the case file shows that it is the case of the petitioner that on 16.06.1984, he was appointed as a Conductor in Haryana Roadways at Sub Depot Gohana District Sonepat. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he has not been granted any annual grade increment, nor has he been granted Higher Standard Pay Scale on completion of 10 years. It is averred that accordingly, petitioner alongwith certain others had filed CWP-17056-1998 titled as Amar Nath and others vs. State of Haryana (Annexure P-2). Vide order dated 06.11.1998, the said CWP-17056-1998 was disposed of and petitioners were directed to file representation; whereafter respondents shall decide the same within 6 months. Pursuant thereto vide the impugned order dated 01.10.1999 (Annexure P-1), the respondents have decided the representation and rejected claim of the petitioner for Annual Grade Increment and for Higher Standard Pay Scale. 4. Further, perusal of the file reveals that petitioner is assailing said order on the ground that upon completion of 8/10 and 18/20 years of service, petitioner is entitled to the said benefits. Petitioner is also relying upon Govt. Instructions dated 08.02.1994 (Annexure P-3), as per which, the Govt. has decided to grant time bound Higher Standard Pay Scale to Haryana Govt. employees of Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ after 8 and 18 years of service and w.e.f. 01.01.1994 grant of Higher Standard Pay Scale was regulated. Accordingly, it is the case of the petitioner that having been DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15580-2001 (O&M) 3 of 6 appointed on 16.06.1984 and having completed 10 years regular satisfactory service on 16.06.1994, thus, as per the Govt. Instructions dated 08.02.1994 (Annexure P-3), petitioner is entitled for first Higher Standard Pay Scale. It has further been averred that reasons cited by the respondents in the impugned order for denying the said claim to the petitioner are untenable because the adverse entries made in the ACRs for the year 1989-1990 and 1995-1996 were not communicated to the petitioner in time. Accordingly, petitioner has prayed for issuance of “a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 1.10.1999. Or directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioners after adding the annual grade increments from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential service benefits with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.” 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel has referred to the reply dated 08.04.2025 filed on behalf of respondent No.1 to 3; wherein it has been categorically mentioned that petitioner is not entitled to Higher Standard Pay Scale as there is break in service of the petitioner. Moreover, there are adverse entries in the ACRs of the petitioner. Moreover, claim of the petitioner is highly belated as impugned order was passed on 01.10.1999; whereas present Writ Petition has been filed on 22.09.2001. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Petition. 6. No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the respondent. I have heard learned counsel and perused the DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15580-2001 (O&M) 4 of 6 case file in a great detail. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent-State. 7. The respondents have categorically averred in para 1 of the preliminary submissions of their reply dated 08.04.2025 as follows: - “1. That the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking therein to grant the Higher Standard Pay Scale. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was not entitled for Higher Standard Pay Scale. The petitioner did not complete 10 years regular satisfactory service on dated 16.06.1994. He was terminated w.e.f. 25.11.1992 vide order No. 3807/ECC dated 25.11.1992 which is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1, and he was reinstated w.e.f. 03.08.1994 the order of reinstatement are Annexed herewith as Annexure R- 2. The petitioner has remained out of service from 25.11.1992 to 02.08.1994. As per Government instruction regarding grant of Higher Standard Pay Scale this period is not to be taken in account, moreover it is pertinent to mention here that in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 1989-90 and 1995-96 adverse remarks regarding his integrity are recorded. The adverse remarks were conveyed to him vide letter No. 4952/ECC dated 05.08.1991 and memo No. 3142/ECC dated 01.07.1996 which are annexed herewith as Annexure R-3 and R-4 respectively. The petitioner had filed an appeal to the Transport Commissioner against the adverse remarks indicated in the ACR's. The Transport Commissioner had rejected the same vide No. 4257/A3/E3 dated 09.07.1999 which is annexed herewith as Annexure R-5. Thus he does not deserve for promotion. As per instruction the "Higher Standard Pay Scale is to be granted to those employees who are working on DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15580-2001 (O&M) 5 of 6 regular basis in the present cadre to be reckoned with in the same group and assessed fit for promotion as per procedure prescribed for promotion cases".” 8. No replication has been filed by the petitioner denying the above said averments/submissions of the respondents. Thus, it is established on record that the petitioner has not rendered continuous service. Whereas, as per the Govt. Instructions dated 08.02.1994 (Annexure P-3), continuous regular satisfactory service is required in order to be eligible for grant of Higher Standard Pay Scale. In the present case, no doubt, petitioner was initially appointed on 16.06.1984, however, services of the petitioner had been terminated vide order dated 25.11.1992 (Annexure R-1). Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 03.08.1994 (Annexure R-2) with immediate effect. Therefore, services of the petitioner are not continuous. 9. Furthermore, even service record of the petitioner is not satisfactory as, numerous adverse remarks have been made in ACRs of the petitioner as evident from Annexures R-3 to R-5. In fact, petitioner has been given various punishments from time to time on the basis of various reports of fraud and other information, details of which are encapsulated in Annexure R-7. Contention of the petitioner that the said adverse remarks were never communicated to him is on the face of it false, as petitioner has filed appeal against the same. Clearly, therefore, petitioner is not eligible for the benefit prayed for in terms of the Govt. Instructions dated 08.02.1994 (Annexure P-3). DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15580-2001 (O&M) 6 of 6 10. The present Writ Petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. 11. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 22.07.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document