IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 205 CWP-3587-2018 (O&M) Date of decision : 08.07.2026 Chander Partap ….Petitioner V/S State of Punjab and others ….Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. Manmeet Singh Rana, Advocate with Mr. Aaryan Kargwal and Ms. Kajal Gupta, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. N.P.S. Hira, D.A.G., Punjab. None for respondents No.2 to 4. None for respondent No.5. **** NAMIT KUMAR , J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 4 to promote the petitioner w.e.f. 27.04.2017, i.e. the date respondent No.5, who is junior to the petitioner, has been promoted to the post of Inspecting Officer, with all consequential benefits. Further, directions have been sought to respondent No.2 to restore 04 annual increments, which were wrongly withheld by the respondent-department inspite of the order dated 27.05.2014 (Annexure P-3), passed by the learned Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chandigarh. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed and joined as Secretary with the Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Ltd. (HOUSEFED) VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.10 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-3587-2018 (O&M) 2 on 06.02.1991, and was subsequently promoted to the post of Field Worker, vide order dated 05.09.2000. Respondent No.5-Chaman Lal was initially appointed and joined as Secretary on 10.01.1991, and was further promoted to the post of Field Worker and joined on 06.08.2007. Further, the next promotonal post from the post of Filed Worker is to the post of Inspecting Officer, and respondent No.5, though junior to the petitioner, has been promoted as Inspecting Officer, vide order dated 27.04.2017 (Annexure P-2). Although, the petitioner has not challenged the said order, whereby respondent No.5 has been promoted to the post of Inspecting Officer, however, he is seeking promotion to the said post w.e.f. the said date i.e. 27.04.2017. 3. While considering the case of the petitioner and respondent No.5 for promotion to the post of Inspecting Officer, it has been stated in the promotion order dated 27.04.2017 (Annexure P-2), that Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the year 2013-14 & 2015-16 of the petitioner were graded as ‘Average’, and he was awarded punishment of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect on 20.03.2017, and therefore, he was not found suitable for promotion, whereas respondent No.5, having a good service record, was promoted to the post of Inspecting Officer. 4. 4. Since at the time of consideration of the case of the petitioner and respondent No.5 for promotion to the post of Inspecting Officer, the petitioner was already under the currency of punishment as he was awarded the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect, vide order dated 20.03.2017, and the effect of the said punishment was till 20.03.2019, therefore, the VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.10 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-3587-2018 (O&M) 3 petitioner has no right to claim promotion w.e.f. 27.04.2017, when respondent No.5 has been promoted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Thiru K.S. Murugesan : 1995(3) SCT 345 has held that granting promotion during the currency of punishment of stoppage of increments, would amount to giving premium on the misconduct and the employee cannot claim promotion during the currency of punishment. The said judgment has been followed by this Court in Subhash Gakhar Vs. State of Haryana : 2013(1) RSJ 39 and Kuljinder Singh Vs. Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court : 2011(1) SCT 166. To the similar effect is the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State Bank of India Vs. Suteekshan Mird : 2025 NCPHHC 8524, wherein it has been held as under:- “25. However, we are of firm view that a person cannot earn a promotion during the pendency of a punishment order. If a person has been punished with stopping of increments for a particular period, he cannot be granted promotion during that period, because on promotion, he would be entitled for increment. Both the things cannot go together. 26. In Union of India and others v. K.V. Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 SCC 109, the Supreme Court observed as under: "29. According to us, the Tribunal has erred in holding that when an officer is found guilty in the discharge of his duties, an imposition of penalty is all that is necessary to improve his conduct and to enforce discipline and ensure purity in the administration. In the first instance, the penalty short of dismissal will vary from reduction in rank to censure. We are sure that the Tribunal has not intended that the promotion should be given to the officer from the original date even when the penalty imparted is of reduction in rank. On principle, for the same reasons, the officer cannot be rewarded by promotion as a matter of course even if the penalty is VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.10 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-3587-2018 (O&M) 4 other than that of the reduction in rank. An employee has no right to promotion. He has only a right to be considered for promotion. The promotion to a post and more so, to a selection post, depends upon several circumstances. To qualify for promotion, the least that is expected of an employee is to have an unblemished record. That is the minimum expected to ensure a clean and efficient administration and to protect the public interests. An employee found guilty of a misconduct cannot be placed on par with the other employees and his case has to be treated differently. There is, therefore, no discrimination when in the matter of promotion, he is treated differently. The least that is expected of any administration is that it does not reward an employee with promotion retrospectively from a date when for his conduct before that date he is penalised in praesenti. When an employee is held guilty and penalised and is, therefore, not promoted at least till the date on which he is penalised, he cannot be said to have been subjected to a further penalty on that account. A denial of promotion in such circumstances is not a penalty but a necessary consequence of his conduct. In fact, while considering an employee for promotion his whole record has to be taken into consideration and if a promotion committee takes the penalties imposed upon the employee into consideration and denies him the promotion, such denial is not illegal and unjustified. If further, the promoting authority can take into consideration the penalty or penalties awarded to an employee in the past while considering his promotion and deny him promotion on that ground, it will be irrational to hold that it cannot take the penalty into consideration when it is imposed at a later date because of the pendency of the proceedings, although it is for conduct prior to the date the authority considers the promotion. For these reasons, we are of the view' that the Tribunal is not right in striking down the said portion of the second sub-paragraph after clause (iii) of paragraph 3 of the said Memorandum. We, therefore, set aside the said findings of the Tribunal." 27. Having considered the law as above, we find that the VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.10 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-3587-2018 (O&M) 5 respondent/writ petitioner could not have been promoted with effect from 14.08.2017 on account of currency of his punishment. However, his case was required to be considered afresh after the currency of the punishment lost its effect i.e. from 17.12.2017 onwards. Vacancy was available as on 17.12.2017, and the Promotion Committee would therefore have to take into consideration his record as on 17.12.2017 ignoring the minor punishment, which lost its relevancy. 28. It is settled law that the Courts would not themselves direct or declare anyone as promoted from a particular date, because promotion of an individual not only requires consideration of his eligibility but other aspects also.” 5. To the same effect is the judgment of this Court in N.R. Garg (now deceased) through his LR Vs. State of Punjab and another : 2025 NCPHHC 20033. 6. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot claim promotion during the currency of punishment. As it is a settled and well established principle of service jurisprudence, that promotion does not constitute an indefeasible or vested right, but is always contingent upon the employee satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions and suitable criteria. The existence of a subsisting punishment during the relevant period operates as a disqualification, since it reflects adversely on the conduct, discipline, and integrity of the employee and disentitles him from being considered fit for elevation to a higher post. An employee undergoing punishment cannot, therefore, claim consideration for promotion as a matter of right during the currency of such penalty. 7. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was facing punishment at the relevant time; therefore, the action of the respondents is in consonance with the applicable service rules as well as the settled law governing the field, and no arbitrariness, illegality, or VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.10 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-3587-2018 (O&M) 6 perversity can be attributed thereto. 8. Keeping in view the above, the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspecting Officer w.e.f. 27.04.2017 is hereby rejected. 9. So far as the second claim made in the present petition with regard to restoration of the benefit of 04 annual increments is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall submit a detailed representation to respondent No.2 which may be directed to be considered and disposed of in a time bound manner. 10. If any such representation is submitted by the petitioner within a period of 01 month from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the competent authority within a period of 03 months thereafter. 11. Disposed of in the above terms. 08.07.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR) kothiyal JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.10 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document