IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 205 CWP-35293-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 21.07.2026 Om Parkash Gupta … PeƟƟoner Versus State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. D. R. Bansal, Advocate for the peƟƟoner. Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, DAG, Haryana. ***** NIDHI GUPTA, J . Present Civil Writ PeƟƟon under ArƟcles 226/227 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India has been filed by the peƟƟoner for issuance of a writ in the nature of CerƟorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.6.2019 (Annexure P- 5) passed by respondent No.1 confirming the order dated 6.7.2017 (Annexure P- 2) and order dated 17.7.2017 (Annexure P-3); and further to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus direcƟng the respondents to grant benefit of annual increments/ efficiency bar to the peƟƟoner from the due date i.e. 1.9.1977, and to refix the pay of the peƟƟoner for the purposes of grant of pension to the peƟƟoner along with arrears thereof along with interest @ 12% per annum from the due date. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.23 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-35293-2019(O&M) - 2 - 2. It is inter alia submiƩed by ld. counsel for the peƟƟoner that peƟƟoner was appointed as Clerk through Subordinate Services SelecƟon Board/SSSB and joined the respondent Department on 10.09.1971. During course of service PeƟƟoner was transferred from District Fatehabad to Kaul, District Kurukshetra. At Kaul peƟƟoner received a leƩer for recovery of Rs. 406/-; pursuant to which PeƟƟoner was suspended in August 1974 on the basis of three false reports. AŌer holding detailed inquiry, the Vigilance Department had exonerated the peƟƟoner vide its report dated 31.08.1974. However, in his ACR for the year 1973–74, adverse remarks of "Integrity Doubƞul" were included. Nonetheless, in view of the inquiry report by the Vigilance Department, peƟƟoner was reinstated on his post and allowed increment. However, the Director Health was not saƟsfied with the report and remanded the inquiry to the State Vigilance Department; which again submiƩed inquiry report in favor of the peƟƟoner. 3. Ld. counsel submits that the peƟƟoner had made numerous representaƟons for removal of the consequences of the adverse entry in his ACR for the year 1973–74, but to no avail. Accordingly, peƟƟoner had filed civil suit for mandatory injuncƟon, which was dismissed. Even the civil appeal filed by the peƟƟoner was dismissed by the learned AddiƟonal District Judge. The peƟƟoner had then filed RSA No.3913 of 2016 with the prayer that he is enƟtled for the extended benefits of crossing efficiency bar from 1977; and this Court, had allowed the said appeal and directed the respondent to re-examine the claim of the peƟƟoner of efficiency bar as, as on 1.9.1977 no enquiry was NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.23 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-35293-2019(O&M) - 3 - pending and admiƩedly disciplinary proceedings were iniƟated in the year 1980 subsequent to the enƟtlement of crossing the efficiency bar from 1.9.1977. As the adverse remarks in the ACR for the year 1974 was already liable to be expunged in view of the said Vigilance Report in favour of the relevant the peƟƟoner. The relevant extract of order dated 21.12.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed in RSA No.3913 of 2016 is as follows: - “Hence, the orders of the trial court The and appellate. court are set aside. respondents are directed to re-examine the claim appellant in respect efficiency bar as on 01.09.1977. Perusal of the appeal papers it is evident that as on of 01.09.1977 the of and were по enquiry was pending and admiƩedly disciplinary proceedings iniƟated in the year 1980 i.e. subsequent to the enƟtlement of crossing the efficiency bar. Therefore, the respondents are directed to examine the enƟre records and take a decision if the appellant is enƟtled for the benefit of crossing of efficiency bar from 01.09.1977 the same shall be extended. However, arrears shall be restricted to prior to filing of suit for the period of 3 years. Appeal stands disposed of.” 4. Pursuant thereto, the Director General Health Services (DGHS) had sent registered leƩer dated 17.07.2017 (Annexure P-3) along with order dated 06.07.2017 (Annexure P-2) rejecƟng the case of the peƟƟoner without taking into consideraƟon the direcƟons of this Court in the aforesaid order dated 21.12.2016. The peƟƟoner had then insƟtuted an appeal dated 28.08.2017 (Annexure P-4) before the Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Haryana against the aforesaid orders passed by the DGHS against refusal of annual increment since 1974 onwards. Upon the said appeal, the impugned NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.23 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-35293-2019(O&M) - 4 - order dated 24.06.2019 (Annexure P-5) has been passed. Ld. counsel argues that the impugned order is not sustainable as the leƩer dated 14.01.1982 referred to in the impugned order cannot have retrospecƟve effect. 5. It is further submiƩed that a departmental inquiry was decided as per report dated 10.01.1991 (Annexure P-7) in favor of the peƟƟoner, whereby the charge-sheet dated 08.05.1980 issued against the peƟƟoner stood withdrawn. It is contended that therefore, nothing remained against the peƟƟoner to form basis for the adverse remarks in the ACR concerned. It is submiƩed that the stoppage of efficiency bar as well as increment is a major punishment and cannot be imposed upon the peƟƟoner without adhering to the provisions of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016. Accordingly, prays that the present writ peƟƟon be allowed. 6. Per contra, ld. counsel for the State has vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the peƟƟoner and submiƩed that it is an undisputed fact on record that at the relevant Ɵme, adverse remarks against the peƟƟoner were borne in his ACR for the year 1973–74. Accordingly, increment was rightly withheld. Moreover, for the increment withheld in the year 1973–74, peƟƟoner had filed civil suit only in the year 2010, which is almost 40 years thereaŌer. Even the said civil suit came to be dismissed, as also the first appeal. Further, vide order Annexure P-1, this Court had only directed the respondents to consider the case of the peƟƟoner. Upon consideraƟon, impugned order came to be passed. As such, present writ peƟƟon be dismissed. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.23 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-35293-2019(O&M) - 5 - 7. No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parƟes. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the peƟƟoner. 8. The grievance of the peƟƟoner is that he has been denied the benefit of crossing efficiency bar which was due to him as on 01.09.1977. It has been contended that the adverse remarks borne in the ACR of the peƟƟoner for the year 1973–74 is of no significance as, admiƩedly, the charge-sheet forming the foundaƟon for the said adverse remarks had been dropped by the respondents aŌer conducƟng Departmental Inquiry and peƟƟoner had been exonerated by inquiry report of 1991. 9. Although at first blush, the said submissions of the peƟƟoner appear to be appealing, however, on a more detailed examinaƟon of the maƩer, it is found that said submissions of the peƟƟoner are misleading. AdmiƩedly, the adverse remarks of "Integrity Doubƞul" recorded in the ACR of 1973–74 had been duly conveyed to the peƟƟoner vide leƩer dated 12.12.1974. Against the same, the peƟƟoner had submiƩed representaƟon dated 31.12.1974, which came to be rejected by the competent authority aŌer affording due consideraƟon and opportunity, vide leƩer dated 13.10.1975. The said order dated 13.10.1975 has not been challenged by the peƟƟoner at any stage. Thus, the same has aƩained finality. 10. Furthermore, the Haryana Government vide leƩer No.2759-4GSI- 73/12854 dated 21.05.1973 has issued the following InstrucƟons: - "If ACR of any Government employee contains the adverse remarks of honesty/integrity doubƞul, the employee is not NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.23 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-35293-2019(O&M) - 6 - eligible for promoƟon and crossing of efficiency bar for next 10 years.” Thus, even as per the said InstrucƟons, peƟƟon was not eligible to be granted the efficiency bar for the next 10 years. It is necessary to point out that even the said InstrucƟons have not been challenged by the peƟƟoner. 12. It is also to be noted that peƟƟoner was charge-sheeted under Rule-7 of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1952 vide memo No.82/0(2)-2E-1-80/4318 dated 08.05.1980. However, the same was withdrawn office order dated 07.01.1991. Accordingly, the peƟƟoner was provisionally promoted to the post of Assistant and was posted in the office of Medical Superintendent, General Hospital, Kaithal vide Director General Health Services, Haryana office order dated 05.12.1991. As such, the adverse remarks of "Honesty Doubƞul" in ACR for the year 1973-74 stood against the peƟƟoner and were never expunged. Therefore, his efficiency bar could not be ordered to be crossed. As such, he was not eligible for promoƟon for 10 years i.e. upto 31.03.1984. ThereaŌer, the peƟƟoner vide order dated 07.05.2000 was ordered to be promoted on permanent basis. Hence, peƟƟoner was promoted as Assistant w.e.f. 01.04.1984 and noƟonal benefit of pay fixaƟon from 01.04.1984 to 09.01.1992 was granted to the peƟƟoner vide Director General Health Services, Haryana office order No.76/0(16)-1EI-2000/2935-36 dated 07.05.2000/25.05.2000. 13. The peƟƟoner had then filed CWP No.7666 of 2002 before this Court with the prayer to quash the order dated 07.05.2000 to the extent of giving noƟonal benefit of promoƟon from 01.04.1984 to 09.01.1992. Further NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.23 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-35293-2019(O&M) - 7 - prayed to direct the respondents to grant the actual benefit of promoƟon to the peƟƟoner from the date his junior was promoted as Assistant or at least from 01.04.1984 when the respondents promoted the peƟƟoner noƟonally vide impugned order dated 07.05.2000. This Court while deciding the CWP- 7666-2002 vide order dated 17.01.2003 observed as follows: - "In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present writ peƟƟon and quash the sƟpulaƟon contained in the order dated 07.05.2000 (Annexure P-7) to the effect that the peƟƟoner was only enƟtled to the notaƟonal fixaƟon of his pay w.e.f. 01.04.1984 on the post of Assistant. Consequently, the peƟƟoner would be enƟtled to all the benefits of the promoted post including his salary w.e.f. the date of promoƟon i.e. 01.04.1984 with all other consequenƟal benefits flowing therefrom w.e.f. the aforesaid date. The present peƟƟon is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs." It is not clear as to why the peƟƟoner did not claim the benefit of efficiency bar in the aforesaid CWP-7666-2002. Clearly, therefore, peƟƟoner has accepted the order dated 04.07.2013, which order has now aƩained finality. Thus, order dated 24.06.2019, which has been passed on the direcƟons sought by the peƟƟoner in the CWP-21607-2018, is sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, peƟƟoner is estopped by his own act and conduct to now claim the same at this belated stage. Moreover, in the aforesaid circumstances, principle of res-judicata would also come into play. 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, there is no merit to the present writ peƟƟon and the same is accordingly dismissed. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.23 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-35293-2019(O&M) - 8 - 14. Pending applicaƟon(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) 21.07.2026 JUDGE Neelam Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.23 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh