CWP No. 19924 of 2026 (O&M) -1- 148 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 19924 of 2026 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 06.07.2026 CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATOR AND OTHERS ......PETITIONERS Vs. RAJESH KUMAR CHOPRA AND OTHERS .........RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Ms. Sukhmani T. Patwalia, Addl Standing Counsel, with Mr. Dhruv Walia, Junior Panel Counsel, for the petitioners. ***** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.(ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in OA No. 1534 of 2024 (for short, “the CAT”), whereby the Tribunal directed that respondent No. 1 be treated as having retired from the post of Superintendent Grade-II on attaining the age of superannuation and that the Pension Payment Order, as well as all pensionary benefits, be issued with reference to the said post. NITIN 2026.07.16 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 19924 of 2026 (O&M) -2- 2. Following facts need to be noticed for a proper appreciation of the controversy involved. 2.1 Respondent No. 1 had been working with the petitioners as a Clerk since 10.03.1987. He was promoted as a Junior Assistant on 02.08.1999 and thereafter as a Senior Assistant on 14.09.2004. While working on the said post, departmental proceedings were initiated against him on 18.04.2012, which culminated in the imposition of punishment of withholding of five increments with cumulative effect under Rule 5 (v) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. 2.2 However, this punishment was modified and reduced to withholding of two increments with cumulative effect vide appellate order dated 26.09.2013. It may be noticed that the punishment of stoppage of two increments meant that the increments for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15 were to be withheld and thereafter the next increment was to be released in January, 2016, i.e. after completion of one year's service following the expiry of the punishment in January 2015. The punishment came to an end in January, 2015 and thereafter the case of respondent No. 1 was considered by the petitioners for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 21.10.2015, respondent No. 1 was found fit for promotion and was promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-II vide order dated 28.10.2015 (Annexure A-6). Respondent No. 1 continued to work on the said post for approximately four and a half years, whereafter a show cause notice dated 27.02.2020 (Annexure A-7) was issued by department to him asking him to explain as to why his promotion to the NITIN 2026.07.16 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 19924 of 2026 (O&M) -3- post of Superintendent Grade-II, granted on 28.10.2015 (Annexure A-6), should not be withdrawn on the ground that it had been granted during the currency of punishment of withholding of two increments, which, according to the petitioners, came to an end in January, 2016. 2.3 Respondent No. 1 submitted his reply. However, the petitioners ultimately passed an order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure A-13) reverting him from the post of Superintendent Grade-II to that of Senior Assistant. Respondent No. 1 challenged the said order before the learned CAT by filing Original Application (for short, “the OA”) No. 259 of 2020, whereupon the operation of the reversion order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure A-13) was stayed by the Tribunal. Respondent No. 1 continued to work as Superintendent Grade II and within a period of about five months, attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2020 (Annexure A-2). 2.4 As respondent No. 1 had continued uninterruptedly as Superintendent Grade-II up to the date of his retirement in pursuant to the interim order dated 17.03.2020 passed by the Tribunal, the Original Application was disposed of vide order dated 10.08.2022 as having been rendered infructuous in view of the retirement of the applicant to which the Chandigarh Administration also agreed. 2.5 Thereafter, the petitioners sought to contend that since there had been no adjudication upon the reversion order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure A-13) and the Original Application had merely been disposed of as infructuous, they were entitled to implement the said reversion order and treat respondent No. 1 as having retired from the post of Senior Assistant, thereby fixing his pensionary benefits in the reverted cadre. NITIN 2026.07.16 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 19924 of 2026 (O&M) -4- 2.6 Feeling aggrieved by the said action, respondent No. 1 again approached the Tribunal and, vide the impugned order dated 16.01.2026 (Annexure P-1), the Tribunal held that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, respondent No. 1 was entitled to be treated as having retired from the post of Superintendent Grade-II for all monetary and retiral benefits. 3. Learned Additional Standing Counsel, assisted by learned Junior Panel Counsel, vehemently contended that since there had been no adjudication on the reversion order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure A-13) and the Original Application had been disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, the petitioners were fully justified in treating the reversion order as valid and in fixing the pensionary benefits of respondent No. 1 in the cadre of Senior Assistant rather than Superintendent Grade-II. 3.1 Learned counsel further submitted that treating the reversion order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure A-13) as having lost its significance while directing the petitioners to fix the pensionary benefits of respondent No. 1 by treating him as having retired in the cadre of Superintendent Grade-II, is legally unsustainable. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have carefully gone through the record. 5. It may be noticed that when the Original Application challenging the order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure A-13), whereby respondent No. 1 had been reverted from the post of Superintendent Grade- II to that of Senior Assistant, came up for consideration, the same NITIN 2026.07.16 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 19924 of 2026 (O&M) -5- was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous on account of the retirement of respondent No. 1. Had the petitioners intended to treat the said reversion order as valid and operative, despite retirement of respondent No. 1 the said fact ought to have been brought to the notice of the Tribunal. However, no such objection was ever raised. 6. Even otherwise, as there was no adjudication upon the order of reversion, this Court has examined whether the reason assigned for reverting respondent No. 1 from the post of Superintendent Grade-II to that of Senior Assistant was legally sustainable or not. 7. It may be noticed that the sole basis for passing the reversion order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure A-13) was that the promotion granted to respondent No. 1 in October, 2015 had been made during the currency of the punishment and, therefore, could not have been granted. In our considered opinion, the said reasoning is factually incorrect. 8. It may be noticed that the punishment imposed upon respondent No. 1 was that of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Consequently, the increment due in January, 2014 after rendering one year of service was withheld. This constituted the first increment withheld pursuant to the punishment. The second increment, which became due on 15.01.2015 after rendering one year of service, was also withheld. Thus, the punishment itself came to an end in January, 2015. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 was only required to complete one year's service for earning his next increment, which became due in January, 2016. The petitioners have erroneously treated the currency of the punishment as extending up-to January, 2016, which is factually incorrect. The NITIN 2026.07.16 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 19924 of 2026 (O&M) -6- punishment came to an end in January, 2015 and had no correlation with the subsequent release of the next increment after completion of the punishment from January 2015 to January 2016. Consequently, the very foundation of the reversion order dated 13.03.2020 is factually unsustainable. 9. That is why, when respondent No. 1 challenged the reversion order before the Tribunal, the same was stayed and he continued to work on the promoted post of Superintendent Grade-II till he retired on 31.08.2020 (Annexure A-2). Besides, respondent No. 1 had been promoted only after the recommendations of the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee. Respondent No. 1 had worked on the promoted post from October, 2015 till the passing of the reversion order in March, 2020, i.e. for a period of approximately four and a half years. 10. Even otherwise, assuming that the currency of the punishment extended up to January, 2016, the order of reversion could not have been passed because, on the date of reversion, i.e. 13.03.2020 (Annexure A-13), respondent No. 1 was not undergoing any punishment. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the direction issued by the Tribunal to treat respondent No. 1 as having retired from the post of Superintendent Grade-II is perfectly justified. Consequently, the reversion order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure A- 13) shall not be given effect to in any manner, being contrary to the factual position, and respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to the pensionary benefits attached to the post of Superintendent Grade-II for all intents and purposes. Any consequential benefits which have not yet been released shall be paid to respondent No. 1 within a period of eight weeks along with interest @ NITIN 2026.07.16 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 19924 of 2026 (O&M) -7- 6% per annum. 11. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE JULY 06, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) nitin JUDGE Whether Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No NITIN 2026.07.16 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document