136 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3756 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.07.2026 Jarnail Kaur .......... Appellant Versus The Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh and others .......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate, for the appellant-plaintiff. (Through Video-Conferencing) Mr. Aftab Singh Khara, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents-defendants. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff-Jarnail Kaur has filed the present Regular Second Appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 01.05.2015 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as “First Appellate Court”), whereby her appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2014 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”) partly decreeing her suit for declaration and mandatory injunction, was dismissed. [2] The trial Court record has been perused. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their status in the Civil Suit. DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.24 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 3756 of 2016 (O&M) -2- FACTS [3] The plaintiff-Jarnail Kaur filed the suit for declaration with the following prayer:- “ Suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is entitled to grant increments/step-ups with retrospective effect, being so entitled to on successful completion of 25 years of service with defendants, being the specified period/tenure of service as per the policy guidelines of defendants. AND For declaration to the effect that discriminatory action of defendants in with holding increments/step-ups to plaintiff is actionable perse, and defendants are liable to make payment of damages to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- for having unduly delayed making payment of increments/step-ups to plaintiff, as also to pay penal interest on the arrears due for payment to plaintiff. AND For grant of mandatory injunction thereby directing defendants, their officials, employees etc. to grant increments/step-ups to plaintiff alongwith all the consequential benefits including back wages alongwith interest and damages amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, plaintiff being so entitled on the basis of oral and documentary evidence.” [4] Briefly stating, the plaintiff joined the service of defendant No. 4 as a Staff Nurse on 28.11.1986 and, over the years, remained posted at various stations in Punjab. It is pleaded that throughout her service career, no adverse remark has been recorded in her service book and no departmental inquiry is pending against her. The plaintiff further averred that under the policy of the defendants, an employee having an unblemished service record is entitled to the benefit of increments/step-up on completion of the prescribed length of service and that she had earlier been granted such DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.24 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 3756 of 2016 (O&M) -3- benefits from time to time. However, despite having completed more than 25 years of service, the defendants failed to grant her the due step- up/increments without any justification. It is further averred that despite repeated representations dated 27.05.2009, 06.08.2009 and 29.10.2009 addressed to defendant No.3, with a copy of the last representation also forwarded to defendant No.2, the defendants failed to redress her grievance. Left with no alternative, the plaintiff served a legal notice dated 17.03.2012 upon defendants No.1 to 5 calling upon them to release the due increments/step-up with retrospective effect along with all consequential benefits. As no action was taken despite receipt of the notice, the plaintiff filed a civil suit. [5] On notice, the defendants appeared and filed their written statement raising preliminary objections. It was pleaded that a departmental inquiry had been initiated against the plaintiff vide charge-sheet No.2000/901 dated 10.02.2000, which could not be concluded as the plaintiff had challenged the inquiry proceedings by filing a civil suit on 28.03.2000. The said suit was dismissed on 19.11.2007. It was further pleaded that during the pendency of the first inquiry, another departmental inquiry was initiated against the plaintiff vide charge-sheet No.6969 dated 08.09.2003 on account of a subsequent act of misconduct, and those proceedings also remained pending owing to the pendency of the earlier civil suit. After dismissal of the civil suit, the first inquiry culminated in the order of warning to the plaintiff vide order dated 07.02.2011, whereas the second inquiry continued to remain pending. The defendants further averred that, as per the Government instructions governing the Assured Career Progression DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.24 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 3756 of 2016 (O&M) -4- (ACP) Scheme, the case of an employee for grant of ACP benefits is to be considered on the same parameters as promotion, and where a departmental inquiry is pending, such consideration is required to be deferred till its conclusion. Since the second inquiry was still pending, the plaintiff's claim under the ACP Scheme was stated to be premature. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff had already been granted annual increments as well as ACP benefits on completion of eight years of service, that she had earlier instituted a civil suit titled Jarnail Kaur v. State of Punjab and others which had been concealed from the Court, and, therefore, she was not entitled to the relief claimed. On these premises, dismissal of the suit with costs was prayed for. [6] The plaintiff filed the replication while controverting all the averments of the written statement. [7] Since the parties were at variance, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- “(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP (3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (4) Whether the plaintiff is having no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD (5) Relief. ” [8] On appraisal of evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 23.04.2014, partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff as follows:- DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.24 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 3756 of 2016 (O&M) -5- “ RELIEF 20. In view of the discussion made hereinabove on the aforesaid issues, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed to the effect that the defendants are directed to grant increments/step ups with retrospective effect to the plaintiff as per rules. However, the relief qua the grant of damages to the tune of Rs. two lacs is declined. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to the record room. ” [9] Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2014 passed by the learned trial Court, the appellant-plaintiff as well as the respondents- defendants preferred separate first appeals before the learned First Appellate Court. Vide a common judgment and decree dated 01.05.2015, both the appeals were dismissed, thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. CONTENTION(S): ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF [10] Impugning the aforesaid judgment(s) and decree(s) passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant contends that despite having failed to adhere to the Circular dated 10.12.1959 (Exhibit P-X) issued by the respondents with regard to the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings within a period of six months, the suit of plaintiff was required to be decreed in toto while granting the relief of damages amounting to Rs. 2 lakhs. No other point has been urged. [11] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents- defendants submits that the learned Courts below having appreciated the entire pleadings and evidence available on record, rightly declined the relief of grant of damages amount to the plaintiff. DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.24 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 3756 of 2016 (O&M) -6- DISCUSSION AND REASONING [12] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the paper-book / records, I find substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff. [13] The limited controversy in the present appeal pertains to the appellant-plaintiff's claim for damages amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the inordinate delay in the release of increments/step-ups and the consequent harassment allegedly suffered by her. [14] The material facts are largely undisputed. The appellant- plaintiff, while serving as a Staff Nurse under the respondents, was served with Charge-sheet No. 2000/901 dated 10.02.2000 (Ex. D-1). She challenged the said departmental proceedings by instituting a civil suit on 28.03.2000, which ultimately came to be dismissed on 19.11.2007(Ex. D-2). During the pendency of the said suit, a second departmental enquiry was initiated against her vide Charge-sheet No. 6969 dated 08.09.2003 (Ex. D-3) on allegations of insubordination and misconduct. However, the said enquiry also remained pending owing to the pendency of the civil suit. Consequently, both departmental enquiries remained unresolved for a considerable period and were eventually concluded vide Enquiry Reports dated 01.11.2010 (Ex. P-11), pertaining to the charge-sheet dated 10.02.2000, and 25.07.2013 (Ex. P-12), pertaining to the charge-sheet dated 08.09.2003. [14.1] Significantly, DW-1, Dr. R.P. Bhatia, Senior Medical Officer, PHC Sudhar, District Ludhiana, admitted during his cross-examination that the appellant-plaintiff later stood exonerated of all charges in both the DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.24 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 3756 of 2016 (O&M) -7- departmental enquiries. He further deposed that, in terms of the administrative manuals, a departmental enquiry is ordinarily required to be concluded within six months. In this regard, the Circular dated 10.12.1959 prescribing the time limit for conclusion of departmental enquiries was put to the witness during his cross-examination and was admitted in evidence as Ex. PX. The relevant Circular dated 10.12.1959 (Annexure A-1), which stipulates that a departmental enquiry initiated pursuant to a charge-sheet served upon a Government employee is required to be concluded within a period of six months, extendable up to 3 months only with the approval of the Minister In-Charge, is reproduced hereunder: “ Copy of Circular letter No.12277-V(1)-59/13470, dated the 10th December, 1959, from the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Vigilance Department, addressed to all heads of Departments, Registrar, Punjab High Court etc. Subject: Department enquiries-time-limit. Subject: Department enquiries-time-limit. I am directed to say, that the question of prescribing some time-limit to complete process of investigation and enquiry in departmental proceedings came up for discussion in the conference of Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner etc. held at Shimla in September 1959. 2. Government feels that officials are often harassed by the length of time taken to complete the process of investigation and enquiry even in cases, which do not eventually result in a charge- sheet, often the official concerned is subjected to anxiety by the knowledge that an investigation is proceeding against him. Government accordingly realise that there should be a very strict limit to the time an official is subjected to such process. DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.24 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 3756 of 2016 (O&M) -8- 3. In this background, keeping in view practical consideration, as far as possible, Government have taken the following decisions:- (i) The whole process of investigation and enquiry should be completed within six months (excluding period of reference to the Public Service Commission and period where proceedings are stopped owning to a reference to court of law). (2) An extension of the period by another three months may be obtained under the orders of the Minister in-charge. (3) If extension beyond nine months i.e. period (i) and (ii) above, is needed, full facts and justification must be placed before the Cabinet and their approval taken. 4. I am to request that these instructions may be kept in view by all concerned for strict observance. 5. This supersedes all the previous instructions on the subject.” [14.2] Despite the aforesaid administrative instructions, DW-1 admitted that he had not brought any record reflecting the prescribed time limit for completion of departmental enquiries. He nevertheless conceded that the enquiries arising out of Charge-sheet Ex. D-1 dated 10.02.2000 and Charge-sheet Ex. D-3 dated 08.09.2003 remained pending for approximately thirteen years and ten years, respectively. He further admitted that, apart from the aforesaid two charge-sheets, no other departmental enquiry had ever remained pending against the appellant-plaintiff. He further admitted having received the representations Ex. P-1 to P-3 as well as the legal notice Ex. P-4 submitted by the appellant-plaintiff, but conceded that no response thereto was ever furnished. [15] Admittedly, in the present case, no interim order had been passed in the civil suit instituted by the appellant-plaintiff restraining the DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.24 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 3756 of 2016 (O&M) -9- respondents from proceeding with the departmental enquiries. Nevertheless, the respondents allowed the enquiries to remain pending for an inordinately long period before finally concluding the same. Even after dismissal of the civil suit vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.2007, the respondents failed to conclude the pending enquiries with reasonable expedition despite repeated representations by the appellant-plaintiff seeking release of her increments/step-ups vide letters dated 27.05.2009, 06.08.2009 and 29.10.2009, followed by a legal notice dated 17.03.2012, all of which remained unanswered. [16] In these circumstances, the learned Courts below rightly held the appellant-plaintiff entitled to the consequential benefits of release of her increments/step-ups. However, the prolonged pendency of the departmental enquiries, which ultimately ended in her exoneration, resulted in withholding of her service benefits for a considerable period, causing her financial loss and avoidable harassment. The delay in concluding the enquiries is attributable solely to the respondents and cannot be blamed on the appellant- plaintiff. [17] The respondents also cannot justify the delay merely on the ground that the appellant-plaintiff had challenged the first charge-sheet by way of a civil suit. Admittedly, there was no interim order restraining them from proceeding with the enquiries. Had the respondents adhered to their own Circular dated 10.12.1959 prescribing the time limit for conclusion of departmental enquiries, the appellant-plaintiff would not have been deprived of her legitimate service benefits for such a long period. The respondents are, therefore, liable to compensate the appellant-plaintiff for the loss and DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.24 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 3756 of 2016 (O&M) -10- hardship caused by the unwarranted delay in concluding the departmental enquiries. [18] In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is hereby partly allowed while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff by directing the defendants to make payment of damages to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for having delayed the conclusion of inquiry proceedings which consequently resulted into denial of payment of increments/step-ups to the plaintiff for long. The needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of certified copy of this order, failing which the respondents-defendants shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum till the date of actual payment and such interest shall be recoverable from the officer(s)/official(s) guilty for delay in disbursal of amount. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. [19] Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly. July 15, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) 'dk kamra' JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.24 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document