IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 111 CWP-9366-2017 Date of Decision : May 11, 2026 SURAJ MAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.2. *** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) 1. The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby the petitioner’s claim for promotion on the ground that his junior had been promoted, was rejected. 2. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the District and Sessions Judge has categorically recorded that the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet and thereafter issued a show cause notice proposing the punishment of dismissal from service. However, taking into consideration his past service record, his request for leniency made at the time of personal hearing, and the fact that he was due to retire on 30.06.2014, only a penalty of ₹5,000/- was imposed upon him. It has further been specifically recorded that no official junior to the petitioner was promoted as Reader Grade-I after DEVINDER YADAV 2026.05.13 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-9366-2017 2 18.04.2013 (the date of issuance of charge-sheet) up to 30.06.2014 (the date of his retirement), ignoring the petitioner from his promotion. The said factual position has not been disputed by the petitioner even in the present writ proceedings. 3. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was made to discharge duties on a higher post, however, the salary attached to the said higher post was not granted to him. Since this issue was neither raised before the authority concerned nor adjudicated upon in the impugned order, this Court is not inclined to examine the same in the present proceedings. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent authority in the first instance for redressal of the said grievance. 5. The instant writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, with liberty (supra). (KULDEEP TIWARI) May 11, 2026 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No DEVINDER YADAV 2026.05.13 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment