CWP-21547-2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 767 CWP-21547-2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.07.2026 S.C. MIGLANI ....Petitioner Versus HARYANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD & ANR ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present : Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Kumar, Addl. AG, Haryana. ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel submits that petitioner had retired on 31.12.2006, thus the Instructions dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure P-9) mandating the previous sanction to be obtained from HPGCL in case commercial employment is to be taken by retired Class-I Officer of the Nigam within two years of retirement, would not be applicable to him. 2. Learned State counsel submits that Rule 7.26(a) of Civil Services Rules, Part-I Volume-II, already existed and thus the submission of the petitioner is not valid and a reference can be made to sub-para (iii) of the parawise reply dated 02.07.2011, which reads thus: “iii) That the contents of sub para-(iii) of para-11 of the writ petition are wrong and hence denied. In reply to this sub para it is submitted that HPGCL vide office order no. I/GENCO/REG-1 dated 27.08.1998 Regulations/H.S.E.B. adopted the Rules/erstwhile Orders of applicable as on 14.08.1998. Since CSR was applicable to erstwhile H.S.E.B., it is also applicable to HPGCL since 27.08.1998. From the perusal of Annexure P-9 it is very much clear that Annexure P-9 was issued only to brought Rule 7.26(a) of CSR Part-I Vol-II in the notice of officers working in HPGCL. It doesn't mean that the Rule 7.26(a) of CSR Part-I Vol-II was adopted by HPGCL on that MAHIMA 2026.07.23 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-21547-2010 (O&M) 2 very date.” 3. There was no counter to the above, nor the learned counsel for the petitioner, despite best efforts, was able to refute the aforesaid or make any submission to carve out a case in his favor. Be that as it may, the plea taken of non-applicability of Instructions dated 10.10.2008 upon him, i.e. after he retired in 2006 is not tenable, as the Rules existed prior thereto with regard to the same, thus impugned orders require no interference. 4. In view of the above, the present petition is hereby dismissed. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 21.07.2026 mahima Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No MAHIMA 2026.07.23 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh