CWP-14421-2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 204 I.K. Sharma Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present:- Mr. T.P. Singh, Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka, for the respondents TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA The quashing the order dated 05.09.1983, Annexure P which was statedly passed without affording any opportunity of hearing petitioner, as also the order dated mandamus has been so bar and pay the consequential benefits to him. 2. As per facts of the case in brief, the petitioner joined as Clerk in the University in charge-sheeted for wrongly giving himself chargesheet dated 13.07.1983. punishment dated recovery of the excess amount paid him before the Civil Court dismissed vide 2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Versus Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. T.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka, Advocate for the respondents/University. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) The petition has been filed inter alia quashing the order dated 05.09.1983, Annexure P which was statedly passed without affording any opportunity of hearing petitioner, as also the order dated 19.12.1998, Annexure P has been sought directing the respondents to bar and pay the consequential benefits to him. As per facts of the case in brief, the petitioner joined as Clerk in the University in 1969, and was confirmed as such in 1976. He was later ted for wrongly giving himself chargesheet dated 13.07.1983. After conclusion of the inquiry, the order punishment dated 05.06.1993 was passed reducing his pay recovery of the excess amount paid. The punishment before the Civil Court by filing a suit for declaration, which was vide judgment dated 02.12.1995, Annexure P -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-14421-2000 (O&M) Date of Decision:07.04.2025 …Petitioner(s) Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar and others…Respondent(s) TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Advocate for the petitioner Advocate inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 05.09.1983, Annexure P-2, stopping efficiency bar, which was statedly passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the 19.12.1998, Annexure P-4. Further, a writ of ught directing the respondents to remove the efficiency As per facts of the case in brief, the petitioner joined as Clerk in 1969, and was confirmed as such in 1976. He was later ted for wrongly giving himself advance increments vide After conclusion of the inquiry, the order of was passed reducing his pay and effecting The punishment order was challenged by by filing a suit for declaration, which was judgment dated 02.12.1995, Annexure P-5. - certiorari , to the writ of the efficiency As per facts of the case in brief, the petitioner joined as Clerk in 1969, and was confirmed as such in 1976. He was later advance increments vide of effecting was challenged by by filing a suit for declaration, which was Aman Dua 2025.04.15 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-14421-2000 3. It is categoric stand by the University that the impugned order dated 05.09.1983, is no longer operative annual increments/crossing of efficiency bar withheld till the final decision of his decided as the same has also been declined. The second petitioner to cross the eff effect from 01.01.19 already been placed in the higher pay the written statement 2040 w.e.f. 1.1.86 his efficiency bar became due on 1.1.98 raising his pay from Rs.1560/- dated 19.12.98 of pay scale of Rs.1600 by mistake, the University sh accordance with law. Importantly to mention her that the plaintiff did not suffer any financial loss due to allowing him to cross the efficiency bar in the pay scale of Rs.1200 4. In view adjudication, and the petition stands 5. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 07.04.2025 Payal 2000 It is categoric stand by the University that the impugned order dated 05.09.1983, is no longer operative as vide this order the petitioner’s annual increments/crossing of efficiency bar withheld till the final decision of his chargesheet, which already decided as the order of punishment has been passed and challenge against the same has also been declined. The second order dated to cross the efficiency bar in the pay effect from 01.01.1998, was mistakenly issued already been placed in the higher pay-scale. It the written statement, ‘…After fixing his pay in the revised scale of Rs.1200 2040 w.e.f. 1.1.86 his efficiency bar became due on 1.1.98 raising his pay Rs.1560/- to Rs.1600/- which has been allowed to be crossed vide order dated 19.12.98. These orders though has become infructuous in view of grant of pay scale of Rs.1600-2660 w.e.f. 1.1.94, but since it has been done wrongly mistake, the University shall take appropriate steps in this regard in accordance with law. Importantly to mention her that the plaintiff did not suffer any financial loss due to allowing him to cross the efficiency bar in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 w.e.f. 1.1.98.’ In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, nothing survives for adjudication, and the petition stands disposed of Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -2- It is categoric stand by the University that the impugned order, as vide this order the petitioner’s annual increments/crossing of efficiency bar at the rate of six hundred was chargesheet, which already stands shment has been passed and challenge against the order dated 19.12.1998, allowing the iciency bar in the pay-scale of ₹1200-2040 with was mistakenly issued by the University as he had . It has been specifically stated in ‘…After fixing his pay in the revised scale of Rs.1200- 2040 w.e.f. 1.1.86 his efficiency bar became due on 1.1.98 raising his pay which has been allowed to be crossed vide order . These orders though has become infructuous in view of grant 2660 w.e.f. 1.1.94, but since it has been done wrongly all take appropriate steps in this regard in accordance with law. Importantly to mention her that the plaintiff did not suffer any financial loss due to allowing him to cross the efficiency bar in the of the aforesaid undisputed facts, nothing survives for disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No - , as vide this order the petitioner’s at the rate of six hundred was stands shment has been passed and challenge against the 19.12.1998, allowing the 2040 with d has been specifically stated in - 2040 w.e.f. 1.1.86 his efficiency bar became due on 1.1.98 raising his pay which has been allowed to be crossed vide order . These orders though has become infructuous in view of grant 2660 w.e.f. 1.1.94, but since it has been done wrongly all take appropriate steps in this regard in accordance with law. Importantly to mention her that the plaintiff did not suffer any financial loss due to allowing him to cross the efficiency bar in the of the aforesaid undisputed facts, nothing survives for ) Aman Dua 2025.04.15 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document