CWP-12609-2025 114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT ASHOK YADAV UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR Present: Mr. for the Mrs. Madhu Dayal, Addl. Standing Counsel, U.T. with Ms. for respondents No.1 and 2. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for notional fixation for the period 01.10.2012 to 07.07.2015 offered same date. 2. Brief facts which we notice for adjudication of this writ petition are that the writ petitioner was 14.08.2006; the in Education Department on 07.12.2010. 3. An advertisement was issued on Masters/ subject, out of which three were meant for General Category and one was reserved for OBC category. The petitioner was declared selected in the 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ASHOK YADAV Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA **** Mr. B.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Madhu Dayal, Addl. Standing Counsel, U.T. with Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Jr. Panel Counsel, U.T. for respondents No.1 and 2. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notional fixation for the period 01.10.2012 to 07.07.2015 the same post for which he had been earlier selected, and fr same date. Brief facts which we notice for adjudication of this writ petition are that the writ petitioner was initially appointed as a Scientific Assistant on 14.08.2006; thereafter he was selected for the post of TGT Maths Master in Education Department on 07.12.2010. An advertisement was issued on 05.08.2017 for selection on the post of Masters/lady Masters Mathematics. There were four posts in the said subject, out of which three were meant for General Category and one was reserved for OBC category. The petitioner was declared selected in the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-12609-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.05.2025 . . . . Petitioner AND OTHERS . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mrs. Madhu Dayal, Addl. Standing Counsel, U.T. with Shubreet Kaur, Jr. Panel Counsel, U.T. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was entitled notional fixation for the period 01.10.2012 to 07.07.2015 upon being the same post for which he had been earlier selected, and from the Brief facts which we notice for adjudication of this writ petition are that initially appointed as a Scientific Assistant on reafter he was selected for the post of TGT Maths Master in Education Department on 07.12.2010. 05.08.2017 for selection on the post of Mathematics. There were four posts in the said subject, out of which three were meant for General Category and one was reserved for OBC category. The petitioner was declared selected in the (O&M) .2025 Petitioner s petitioner was entitled being om the Brief facts which we notice for adjudication of this writ petition are that initially appointed as a Scientific Assistant on reafter he was selected for the post of TGT Maths Master 05.08.2017 for selection on the post of Mathematics. There were four posts in the said subject, out of which three were meant for General Category and one was reserved for OBC category. The petitioner was declared selected in the MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.08 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12609-2025 final merit list and was placed at No.1 in the waiting list in OB One Ajay Kumar was selected, whose appointment was challenged by one Raminderjit Kaur in OA No.212/CH/2010 claiming that marks of written test were not to be included in the final merit list. Ajay Kumar resigned and the petitioner being next in order dated 09.11.2010. He was therefore impleaded by Raminderjit Kaur as respondent in OA No.212/CH/2010 which was decided holding that marks of written tests were not to be added to the final merit. dated 11.0 Supreme Court, and the order dated 11.05.2011 was upheld. The merit was therefore re was removed from service vide order dated 28.08.2012 already working on the lower post of Scientific Assistant, he was reverted back to the post of Sr. Quality Assurant Establishment, where he joined back on the post on which he was holding lien. Other candidates from different streams also ap CH-2010 titled as Administration’ were not to be added to final merit list. Consequently, the last candidate namely 16.11.2012. She challenged her termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which was allowed on the ground that she was not the least meritorious candidate. The order dated 28 passed by the CAT in her favour was challenged by the respondents before this Court in CWP the order of the Tribunal was modified holding that only five marks 2025 (O&M) final merit list and was placed at No.1 in the waiting list in OB One Ajay Kumar was selected, whose appointment was challenged by one Raminderjit Kaur in OA No.212/CH/2010 claiming that marks of written test were not to be included in the final merit list. Ajay Kumar resigned and the petitioner being next in order dated 09.11.2010. He was therefore impleaded by Raminderjit Kaur as respondent in OA No.212/CH/2010 which was decided holding that marks of written tests were not to be added to the final merit. dated 11.05.2011 was challenged before this Court and then before the Supreme Court, and the order dated 11.05.2011 was upheld. The merit was therefore re-casted excluding marks of written test, and the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 28.08.2012 already working on the lower post of Scientific Assistant, he was reverted back to the post of Sr. Quality Assurant Establishment, where he joined back on the post on which he was holding lien. Other candidates from different streams also approached the Tribunal in another OA No.1000 2010 titled as ‘Shalu Chawla vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration’, and the Tribunal again held that marks of written test were not to be added to final merit list. Consequently, the last candidate amely Arpana Mahajan was ordered to be removed vide order dated 16.11.2012. She challenged her termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which was allowed on the ground that she was not the least meritorious candidate. The order dated 28 passed by the CAT in her favour was challenged by the respondents before this Court in CWP-16336-2013. After examining the case at length, the order of the Tribunal was modified holding that only five marks final merit list and was placed at No.1 in the waiting list in OBC category. One Ajay Kumar was selected, whose appointment was challenged by one Raminderjit Kaur in OA No.212/CH/2010 claiming that marks of written test were not to be included in the final merit list. Ajay Kumar the merit list was appointed vide order dated 09.11.2010. He was therefore impleaded by Raminderjit Kaur as respondent in OA No.212/CH/2010 which was decided holding that marks of written tests were not to be added to the final merit. The order 5.2011 was challenged before this Court and then before the Supreme Court, and the order dated 11.05.2011 was upheld. The merit casted excluding marks of written test, and the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 28.08.2012. Since he was already working on the lower post of Scientific Assistant, he was reverted back to the post of Sr. Quality Assurant Establishment, where he joined back on the post on which he was holding lien. Other candidates from proached the Tribunal in another OA No.1000- ‘Shalu Chawla vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh , and the Tribunal again held that marks of written test were not to be added to final merit list. Consequently, the last candidate Arpana Mahajan was ordered to be removed vide order dated 16.11.2012. She challenged her termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which was allowed on the ground that she was not the least meritorious candidate. The order dated 28.03.2013 passed by the CAT in her favour was challenged by the respondents 2013. After examining the case at length, the order of the Tribunal was modified holding that only five marks C category. One Ajay Kumar was selected, whose appointment was challenged by one Raminderjit Kaur in OA No.212/CH/2010 claiming that marks of written test were not to be included in the final merit list. Ajay Kumar the merit list was appointed vide order dated 09.11.2010. He was therefore impleaded by Raminderjit Kaur as respondent in OA No.212/CH/2010 which was decided holding that The order 5.2011 was challenged before this Court and then before the Supreme Court, and the order dated 11.05.2011 was upheld. The merit casted excluding marks of written test, and the petitioner Since he was already working on the lower post of Scientific Assistant, he was reverted back to the post of Sr. Quality Assurant Establishment, where he joined back on the post on which he was holding lien. Other candidates from - ‘Shalu Chawla vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh , and the Tribunal again held that marks of written test were not to be added to final merit list. Consequently, the last candidate Arpana Mahajan was ordered to be removed vide order dated 16.11.2012. She challenged her termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which was allowed on the ground that she .03.2013 passed by the CAT in her favour was challenged by the respondents 2013. After examining the case at length, the order of the Tribunal was modified holding that only five marks MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.08 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12609-2025 assigned to the of remaining written test (95 marks) were to be included for consideration of the merit. Directions were therefore issued for revising the merit list. Applying the said judgment, the merit list was again revised and the petitioner (herein) was found to be the top therefore reinstated on the post of teacher (Maths). The petitioner was re appointed on 07.07.2015. He was however not given the benefit of service from his original date of appointme appointment was treated as a fresh appointment. He submitted a representation, and after 12.12.2018, whereby following decision was taken: subject cited above. consequential benefits by giving the seniority, confirmation w.e.f. 07.12.2010 has been considered by this office and it as been dec intial appointment i.e. 15.11.2010. benefits for the period you served in Ministry of Defence (DGQA), Muradnagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. as Scientific Assistant for th been considered and not acceded to. 4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had also preferred OA No.1001/2018, wherein he claimed as under: may kindly be issued to the respondents to treat the original appointment of the applicant vide letter dated 09.11.2010 (Annexure A appointment with all consequential benefits i 2025 (O&M) assigned to the descriptive test were required to be excluded while marks of remaining written test (95 marks) were to be included for consideration of the merit. Directions were therefore issued for revising the merit list. Applying the said judgment, the merit list was again revised and the titioner (herein) was found to be the top therefore reinstated on the post of teacher (Maths). The petitioner was re appointed on 07.07.2015. He was however not given the benefit of service from his original date of appointme appointment was treated as a fresh appointment. He submitted a representation, and after considering the same, the order was passed on 12.12.2018, whereby following decision was taken: “Reference your request dated 05.12.2017 on the subject cited above. It is to inform you that your request for the grant of consequential benefits by giving the seniority, confirmation w.e.f. 07.12.2010 has been considered by this office and it as been decided that you are entitled for seniority from intial appointment i.e. 15.11.2010. Further, your request for the grant of financial benefits for the period you served in Ministry of Defence (DGQA), Muradnagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. as Scientific Assistant for the period w.e.f. 01.10.2012 to 07.07.2015 has been considered and not acceded to. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had also preferred OA No.1001/2018, wherein he claimed as under: “i) It is therefore respectfully prayed that direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to treat the original appointment of the applicant vide letter dated 09.11.2010 (Annexure A-4) as the actual date of appointment with all consequential benefits i quired to be excluded while marks of remaining written test (95 marks) were to be included for consideration of the merit. Directions were therefore issued for revising the merit list. Applying the said judgment, the merit list was again revised and the titioner (herein) was found to be the top-scorer in his category and was therefore reinstated on the post of teacher (Maths). The petitioner was re- appointed on 07.07.2015. He was however not given the benefit of service from his original date of appointment i.e.09.11.2010, and the appointment was treated as a fresh appointment. He submitted a considering the same, the order was passed on 12.12.2018, whereby following decision was taken: Reference your request dated 05.12.2017 on the It is to inform you that your request for the grant of consequential benefits by giving the seniority, confirmation w.e.f. 07.12.2010 has been considered by this office and it ided that you are entitled for seniority from Further, your request for the grant of financial benefits for the period you served in Ministry of Defence (DGQA), Muradnagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. as Scientific e period w.e.f. 01.10.2012 to 07.07.2015 has been considered and not acceded to.” In the meanwhile, the petitioner had also preferred OA No.1001/2018, i) It is therefore respectfully prayed that direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to treat the original appointment of the applicant vide letter dated 4) as the actual date of appointment with all consequential benefits in favour of the quired to be excluded while marks of remaining written test (95 marks) were to be included for consideration of the merit. Directions were therefore issued for revising the merit list. Applying the said judgment, the merit list was again revised and the scorer in his category and was - appointed on 07.07.2015. He was however not given the benefit of nt i.e.09.11.2010, and the appointment was treated as a fresh appointment. He submitted a considering the same, the order was passed on In the meanwhile, the petitioner had also preferred OA No.1001/2018, MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.08 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12609-2025 applicant on his being reinstated in service on the basis of merit revised under the directions of Hon'ble High Court after excluding the pay earned by him during the period he remained out of service, from previous employer by availing the refix the pay of Applicant on the basis of his original appointment dated 09.11.2010, by granting the increments for the entire period prior to his reinstatement on his being reappointed 5. Taking note of the order dated 12.12.2018, as well as the facts which had come on record, the CAT refused to grant him notional fixation for the period from case his pay on the post on which he held li pay fixed in the current department, the same can be protected and he can be placed in the pay appropriately. 6. Learned counsel submits that similarly placed persons namely Mahajan account of the earlier view taken by the CAT, had been given the benefit of notional pay fixation, and the petitioner too therefore being similarly placed, is entitled for the notional pay fixation 7. The notional pay fixation in ordinary treated to be the petitioner’s termination from service was not challenged by earlier. He has been offered appointmen passed in another case After the merit list was revised, the petitioner was offered appointment. He was granted confirmation and seniority from 2025 (O&M) applicant on his being reinstated in service on the basis of merit revised under the directions of Hon'ble High Court after excluding the pay earned by him during the period he remained out of service, from previous employer by availing the lien. ii) Respondent No. 1 and 2 may kindly be directed to refix the pay of Applicant on the basis of his original appointment dated 09.11.2010, by granting the increments for the entire period prior to his reinstatement on his being reappointed.” g note of the order dated 12.12.2018, as well as the facts which had come on record, the CAT refused to grant him notional fixation for the from 01.10.2012 to 07.07.2015, and at the same time held that in case his pay on the post on which he held li pay fixed in the current department, the same can be protected and he can be placed in the pay appropriately. Learned counsel submits that similarly placed persons namely Mahajan and other persons who had been terminated from service on account of the earlier view taken by the CAT, had been given the benefit of notional pay fixation, and the petitioner too therefore being similarly placed, is entitled for the notional pay fixation The notional pay fixation in ordinary sense treated to be in continuous service on the said post. In the present case, the petitioner’s termination from service was not challenged by earlier. He has been offered appointment only on the basis of a judgment passed in another case, where the Court directed for revising the merit list. After the merit list was revised, the petitioner was offered appointment. He was granted confirmation and seniority from applicant on his being reinstated in service on the basis of merit revised under the directions of Hon'ble High Court after excluding the pay earned by him during the period he remained out of service, from previous employer by ) Respondent No. 1 and 2 may kindly be directed to refix the pay of Applicant on the basis of his original appointment dated 09.11.2010, by granting the increments for the entire period prior to his reinstatement on his being g note of the order dated 12.12.2018, as well as the facts which had come on record, the CAT refused to grant him notional fixation for the 01.10.2012 to 07.07.2015, and at the same time held that in case his pay on the post on which he held lien earlier was higher than the pay fixed in the current department, the same can be protected and he can Learned counsel submits that similarly placed persons namely Arpana and other persons who had been terminated from service on account of the earlier view taken by the CAT, had been given the benefit of notional pay fixation, and the petitioner too therefore being similarly placed, is entitled for the notional pay fixation. sense is granted when a person is on the said post. In the present case, the petitioner’s termination from service was not challenged by him t only on the basis of a judgment where the Court directed for revising the merit list. After the merit list was revised, the petitioner was offered appointment. He was granted confirmation and seniority from 07.12.2010, but for the g note of the order dated 12.12.2018, as well as the facts which had come on record, the CAT refused to grant him notional fixation for the 01.10.2012 to 07.07.2015, and at the same time held that in en earlier was higher than the pay fixed in the current department, the same can be protected and he can Arpana and other persons who had been terminated from service on account of the earlier view taken by the CAT, had been given the benefit of notional pay fixation, and the petitioner too therefore being similarly is granted when a person is on the said post. In the present case, him t only on the basis of a judgment where the Court directed for revising the merit list. After the merit list was revised, the petitioner was offered appointment. 07.12.2010, but for the MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.08 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12609-2025 period from 01.10.2012 to 07.07.2015, since he was working on another post of Scientific Assistant where he had drawn actual pay and allowances, the benefit of notional pay fixation has been denied. 8. In our opinion, no person can be allowed to draw dual sa notionally. Once the petitioner had admittedly been working on another post for which he was drawing regular salary and increments, there is no occasion to give him notional fixation for the present post and also give him increments. 9. We also not been drawing higher salary during the said from 01.10.2012 to 07.07.2015 post, in case higher level in the pay, the same would be protected. No further relief could have been granted to him, other than what has been already granted by the CAT. 10. The writ petition fails, and the same is accordingly dismissed. 11. All pending applications also stand disposed of. 05.05.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2025 (O&M) period from 01.10.2012 to 07.07.2015, since he was working on another post of Scientific Assistant where he had drawn actual pay and allowances, the benefit of notional pay fixation has been denied. In our opinion, no person can be allowed to draw dual sa notionally. Once the petitioner had admittedly been working on another post for which he was drawing regular salary and increments, there is no occasion to give him notional fixation for the present post and also give him increments. We also notice that the CAT has already protected the petitioner, if he has been drawing higher salary during the said from 01.10.2012 to 07.07.2015, on account of continuing on the other in case he has drawn increments resulting in higher level in the pay, the same would be protected. No further relief could have been granted to him, other than what has been already granted by the CAT. The writ petition fails, and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes 2. Whether reportable? Yes period from 01.10.2012 to 07.07.2015, since he was working on another post of Scientific Assistant where he had drawn actual pay and allowances, the benefit of notional pay fixation has been denied. In our opinion, no person can be allowed to draw dual salary, even notionally. Once the petitioner had admittedly been working on another post for which he was drawing regular salary and increments, there is no occasion to give him notional fixation for the present post and also give ice that the CAT has already protected the petitioner, if he has been drawing higher salary during the said period. Thus, for the period on account of continuing on the other he has drawn increments resulting in his being placed at the higher level in the pay, the same would be protected. No further relief could have been granted to him, other than what has been already granted The writ petition fails, and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE Yes Yes period from 01.10.2012 to 07.07.2015, since he was working on another post of Scientific Assistant where he had drawn actual pay and lary, even notionally. Once the petitioner had admittedly been working on another post for which he was drawing regular salary and increments, there is no occasion to give him notional fixation for the present post and also give ice that the CAT has already protected the petitioner, if he has for the period on account of continuing on the other his being placed at the higher level in the pay, the same would be protected. No further relief could have been granted to him, other than what has been already granted MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.08 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document