CWP-11384-2022 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 01 CWP-11384-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 Amrish Kumar Jain ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Petitioner in person. Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab. Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Senior Advocate with Dr. Payal Mehta, Advocate and Ms. Manveen Narang, Advocate, for respondent No.2-High Court. *** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to set aside/quash orders dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure P-18) and 18.04.2022 (Annexure P-19) issued by respondent No.1, on the recommendations of respondent No.2-PHHC, whereby the services of the petitioner as Civil Judge (Junior Division) were dispensed with during his probation period. 2. The petitioner, appearing in person, submits that though the prayer in the present petition pertains to quashing of impugned orders dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure P-18) and 18.04.2022 (Annexure P-19), whereby the petitioner was relieved from service as Civil Judge (Junior Division) during AARTI SHARMA 2026.07.27 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11384-2022 (O&M) -2- his probation period, he does not intend to press the same. However, in view of certain facts that have come to the fore subsequent to passing of the impugned orders (Annexure P-18 and P-19, respectively), he seeks an alternate relief admissible to him. 3. The petitioner further submits that upon selection by the Punjab Public Service Commission, on 02.07.1992, he was appointed as Child Development Project Officer (hereinafter ‘CDPO’) on regular basis in the Social Security Department, Punjab. He had also successfully completed his probation period in the said post, as indicated by Annexure P-1. While working as a CDPO, the petitioner applied for selection to Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) (hereinafter ‘PCS (Judicial Branch’)) through the proper channel and qualified the relevant examination in the year 1993. In pursuance of the selection, appointment letter dated 03.11.2005 (Annexure P-2) was issued to the petitioner and he joined service as Civil Judge (Junior Division) with PCS (Judicial Branch) w.e.f. 26.11.2005, after being relieved from his parent department. He further submits that till the confirmation of his service with PCS(Judicial Branch), he retained a lien with the Social Security Department, as also indicated by order dated 01.12.2005 (Annexure P-3). 4. He further submits that on 08.01.2009, he received a letter dated 31.12.2005 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice vide which his services as a member of PCS (Judicial Branch) were dispensed with in view of unsatisfactory performance during the probation period. Thereafter, the petitioner joined the Social Security Department again, where his lien was AARTI SHARMA 2026.07.27 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11384-2022 (O&M) -3- still alive. Meanwhile, the petitioner also filed CWP No.4388 of 2009 before a Division Bench of this Court challenging order dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure P-5). The said petition was decided vide judgment dated 03.07.2018 (Annexure P-7) and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service with PCS (Judicial Branch) along with all consequential benefits. In furtherance thereof, the petitioner rejoined service on 14.03.2019, after being relieved from the Social Security Department on 13.03.2019. However, he was put on probation again and as such, he retained a lien with the Social Security Department till clearance of the same. 5. It may be noted that upon rejoining Social Security Department in 2009, the petitioner filed CWP No.16840 of 2016 seeking benefits of earlier service rendered by him in the said department in terms of continuity of service from the date of his initial appointment with Social Security Department i.e. from the year 1992 onwards as well as continuity after rejoining the said Department upon him being relieved from PCS (Judicial Branch). However, during the pendency of the said writ petition, impugned order dated 18.04.2022 (Annexure P-19) came to be passed whereby the services of the petitioner as Civil Judge (Junior Division) were dispensed with during probation, yet again. However, the petitioner does not seek to press the prayer seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 18.04.2022 rather, an alternate relief is sought. 6. The petitioner raises a specific argument that the petitioner is substantively an employee of the Social Security Department and since he has attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2026, his pensionary dues ought to be released by the said department. To buttress his contention, the AARTI SHARMA 2026.07.27 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11384-2022 (O&M) -4- petitioner refers to judgment dated 11.02.2026 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.16840 of 2016, wherein it was concluded that the petitioner held a lien over the post of CDPO with the Social Security Department on 02.03.2009 i.e. the date of his rejoining and thus, his rejoining shall not be considered as fresh appointment. He further submits that his pensionary dues ought to be released by the Social Security Department after fixing his salary. He also prays for protection of the salary drawn by him on the date on which he was relieved from the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) i.e. 18.04.2022. Additionally, he informs this Court that at the said time, his basic pay was assessed at Rs.1,32,542/- by respondent No.2-PHHC. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-State submits that while it is a conceded position that the petitioner was a substantive employee of the Social Security Department, a question arises regarding the status of his lien on the post of CDPO after he was relieved from PCS (Judicial Branch) vide order dated 18.04.2022 (Annexure P-19). Learned counsel further submits that if it is found that the petitioner retained the said lien as per the order passed in CWP-16840-2016 even after being replaced from the service of PCS (Judicial) on 18.04.2022, appropriate consideration will be given to his claim for pensionary benefits by treating him as an employee of the Social Security Department till 30.06.2026 i.e. the date on which he attained the age of superannuation. 8. In response, the petitioner submits that the question of his lien with the Social Security Department already stands settled by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.02.2026 passed in CWP No.16840 AARTI SHARMA 2026.07.27 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11384-2022 (O&M) -5- of 2016 wherein it was held that he shall continue to have a lien on the post of CDPO till his services are confirmed with PCS (Judicial Branch). As such, it is clear that the said lien shall only cease to exist upon confirmation of the services of the petitioner with PCS (Judicial Branch). 9. Faced with this argument raised by the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that in case a representation is moved by the petitioner seeking grant of retiral benefits, by treating him as an employee of the Social Security Department till the date on which he attained the age of superannuation, the same will be decided in view of judgment dated 11.02.2026 passed in CWP No.16840 of 2016, to which the said department was also a party, wherein the action of the State in treating the petitioner as a fresh appointee was held bad in law. He further assures this Court that the appropriate authority shall take a decision within a period of 08 weeks of receipt of such a representation by the petitioner. 10. The petitioner prays that the present writ may be disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate representation with the Social Security Department, claiming that upon being relieved from PCS (Judicial Branch), he be treated as an employee of the Department, protection of his pay and grant of retiral benefits, in view of the detailed facts mentioned hereinbefore. He reiterates that he does not seek to press the prayer qua quashing orders dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure P-18) and 18.04.2022 (Annexure P-19) and such prayer may be treated as withdrawn. 11. Ordered accordingly. 12. At this stage, the petitioner submits that he pursued litigation against order dated 18.04.2022 (Annexure P-19) whereby he was relieved AARTI SHARMA 2026.07.27 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11384-2022 (O&M) -6- from the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) during probation period and, that he has attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2026. Thus, he prays that the Social Security Department to take a sympathetic view regarding grant of retiral benefits to the petitioner by condoning the intervening period from April, 2022 to 30.06.2026 as the said period might be ignored for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 13. Learned counsel for respondent-State submits that the apprehension of the petitioner is unfounded as no order causing any prejudice to the petitioner has been passed so far qua the said prayer. 14. Keeping in view the discussion above, the present writ petition is disposed of, having not been pressed/withdrawn qua impugned orders dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure P-18) and 18.04.2022 (Annexure P-19) but with a liberty as prayed for and discussed hereinbefore. 15. Before parting with this order, we may add that in view of the fact that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the present writ petition, vide which he has been litigating qua impugned orders dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure P-18) and 18.04.2022 (Annexure P-19) before this Court, a liberal view should be taken for condoning the intervening period from April, 2022 till June, 2026. Further, all efforts be made to ensure that the said period is not discounted for computation of the pensionary benefits of the petitioner; even if no salary is to be paid for this period, it may be taken into account as qualifying service. 16. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 21.07.2026 aarti Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No AARTI SHARMA 2026.07.27 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document