CWP-14532-2019 (O&M) 1 of 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 216 CWP-14532-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.07.2026 Ramphal ...Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suneel Ranga, D.A.G., Haryana, *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notice dated 11.1.2019 (Annexure P-5) vide which the promotions as DHD, Draftsman, and Tracer has been ordered to be withdrawn and to revert the petitioner on the original post i.e. Gauge Reader without taking into consideration the length of the service of the petitioner; and further writ in the nature of a mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on the post DHD (Head Draftsman) which is legally acquired by the petitioner. 2. Brief factual background of the case in chronological order is as follows: - DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14532-2019 (O&M) 2 of 8 01.10.1984: On 01.10.1984, petitioner had joined as Canal Patrol/ Beldar on work charge basis. 25.11.1993: Petitioner was regularized on the said post vide Govt. Letter dated 25.11.1993 w.e.f. 01.04.1993. 14.05.1996: Thereafter in view of order dated 14.05.1996 (Annexure P- 1), passed by the General Manager (Project), petitioner was assigned the current duty charge of Tracer. 05.08.2008: After receiving directions from the office of GM/ Project Irrigation Department, Haryana dated 21.7.2008, the Superintending Engineer, YWS Circle Jind, who was the competent authority in case of Tracer promoted the petitioner on the post of Tracer on 5.8.2008 (Annexure P-2). 27.11.2013: Vide order dated 27.11.2013 (Annexure P-3), petitioner was promoted to the post of Draftsman. 29.06.2016: Vide order dated 29.06.2016 (Annexure P-4), petitioner was further promoted to the post of Divisional Head Draftsman/DHD. 11.01.2019: Thereafter, petitioner received impugned Show Cause Notice dated 11.01.2019 (Annexure P-5); wherein it is mentioned that the promotion from the post of Gauge Reader to the Post of Tracer was against the provisions laid down in Haryana Irrigation Department, Draftsmen & Tracers (Group-C) Service Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “1982 Rules”). Vide the said Show Cause Notice, petitioner was asked to show cause as to why his promotion to the post of Draftsman, Divisional Head Draftsman (DHD) and Tracer issued vide previous letters DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14532-2019 (O&M) 3 of 8 be not withdrawn and why the petitioner be not reverted to the original post of Gauge Reader. 25.02.2019: Petitioner submitted his detailed reply dated 25.02.2019 (Annexure P-6) to the said Show Cause Notice. 27.05.2019: In the meantime, petitioner preferred present Writ Petition on dated 27.05.2019. 28.05.2019: Vide order dated 28.05.2019, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had directed that operation of the impugned order/Notice dated 11.01.2019 (Annexure P-5) shall remain stayed. 18.08.2021: Thereafter vide order dated 18.08.2021, petitioner was promoted to the post of SDO. 28.02.2023: On 28.02.2023, petitioner got retired from the post of SDO after attaining the age of superannuation. 3. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 11.01.2019 (Annexure P-5) had been issued to the petitioner 11 years after he was promoted as Tracer vide order dated 05.08.2008 (Annexure P-2). Previous to that, petitioner had been holding current duty charge as Tracer w.e.f. 21.05.1996. Thus, petitioner had already been holding the post of Tracer for almost 23 years; and 11 years has already passed since the petitioner was promoted to the post of Tracer. During this period, no complaint was ever submitted against the petitioner. Petitioner has further been promoted several times thereafter. At no stage was the promotion of the petitioner objected to by the respondents. It is contended that, DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14532-2019 (O&M) 4 of 8 therefore, at this belated stage, respondents were barred from raising this objection; especially in terms of Article 113 of the Limitation Act, as per which, limitation would run from the date of promotion from the date of the petitioner. It is contended that in case the promotion of the petitioner was improper, the same was required to be challenged by the respondents within stipulated period of limitation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner served the department for more than 35 years without any blemish and earned very good annual confidential reports from his officers and during his whole service carrier not a single adverse remark was ever communicated to the petitioner. 5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Superintending Engineer is the carrier competent authority for the appointment of Tracers and he has issued promotion order to the petitioner after approval from GM Irrigation Department Haryana. So, it is wrong to allege that the petitioner has been given wrongful promotion. 6. He accordingly prays that present Writ Petition be allowed; and Show Cause Notice dated 11.01.2019 (Annexure P-5) be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that present Writ Petition is not maintainable as it is not disputed that as per the 1982 Rules (Annexure R-1), there is no provision for promotion from the post of Gauge Reader to the post of Tracer. Thus, promotion of the petitioner to the post of Tracer from the post of Gauge DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14532-2019 (O&M) 5 of 8 Reader is in contravention of the said Rules; and further promotion to the post of Draftsman, DHD cannot be sustained. Accordingly, vide the impugned Show Cause Notice, petitioner was asked to show cause as to why aforesaid promotions as Tracer, Draftsman, and DHD as issued vide letters from time to time, be not withdrawn and why he should not be reverted to the original post of Gauge Reader. It is contended that as initial promotion of the petitioner is contrary to the Rules, the said subsequent promotions cannot be sustained. It is reiterated as per the Service Rules, 1982, there is no provision of promotion from Class-D to the post of Tracer (Class-C). He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Petition. 8. No other argument is raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 9. The factual matrix of the case has already been noted herein above and is not disputed by learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, petitioner was promoted to the post of Tracer vide order dated 05.08.2008 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, petitioner was further promoted as Draftsman vide order dated 27.11.2013 (Annexure P-3); and further promoted as DHD vide order dated 29.06.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2. 10. It is only on 11.01.2019 (Annexure P-5), that the petitioner received the impugned Show Cause Notice for reversion and withdrawal of promotions on the ground that the same were in contravention of the DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14532-2019 (O&M) 6 of 8 Rules, 1982 as the post of Tracer was not a promotional post. Admittedly, petitioner has served on the post of Tracer on regular basis from 2008 upto 2019 i.e. for a period of 11 years without any objection being raised by the officers of the respondent-Department. During this period, annual scrutiny of the service book of the petitioner was done by the various Officers of the respondent-Department. Every year during annual inspection right from Superintending Engineer to Chief Engineer to Principal Accountant General Haryana have scrutinised the service book of the petitioner. No Officer had raised any objection to this promotion at any point of time. The respondent-State has admitted in para 8 of its reply on merits that “....it is a matter of record that up to 11 years no officer raised any objection to the promotions of the petitioner because this discrepancy was not come to the notice of the Competent Authority. But all of sudden when this discrepancy was brought to the notice of competent authority, the Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner.” Thus, at this belated stage, respondent cannot be allowed to raise this objection. This is especially so as admittedly, during this period, services of the petitioner have been completely satisfactorily, and no complaint has ever been filed against the petitioner. Even further admittedly, during the pendency of the present Writ Petition, petitioner has been further promoted to the post of SDO vide order dated 18.08.2021; from which post, petition has retired on 28.02.2023. 11. I am supported in my view by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Kusheswar Nath Pandey vs. State of Bihar DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14532-2019 (O&M) 7 of 8 (SC): Law Finder Doc Id# 485244; wherein reversion and recovery sought to be made from the appellant therein vide the orders impugned therein, were set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that: - “10. In our view, the facts of the present case are clearly covered under the two judgments referred to and relied upon by Mr. Rai. The appellant was not at all in any way at fault. It was a time bound promotion which was given to him and some eleven years thereafter, the Authorities of the Bihar Government woke up and according to them the time bound promotion was wrongly given and then the relevant rules are being relied upon and that too after the appellant had passed the required examination.” 12. Consequentially, the impugned orders were set aside. 13. Furthermore, Rule 17 of Rules of 1982 (Annexure R-1) is relevant, which reads as under: - “17. Power of Relaxation- Where the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to any class or category of persons.” 14. It is not disputed that the said ‘Power of Relaxation’ has been exercised by the respondents on earlier occasion also. In a similar dispute the respondents had terminated the services of one Kamlesh Rani on being promoted to the post of Tracer, who was appointed as AZO operator. The said order of termination was challenged by way of a Civil Suit No. 370 of 1985 titled as 'Kamlesh Rani versus State of DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14532-2019 (O&M) 8 of 8 Haryana' which was decreed in her favour vide judgment and decree dated 15.06.1987; and the Appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the Ld. Additional District Judge on 07.12.1987. Consequently, the respondents have issued orders dated 06.3.1990 (Annexure P-8) and taken her back in service as Tracer. 15. In view of the above noted factual and legal position, the present Writ Petition is allowed; and Show Cause Notice dated 11.01.2019 (Annexure P-5) is set aside. 16. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 13.07.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document