CWP-22642-2026 (O&M) 1 of 11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 131 CWP-22642-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.07.2026 Subhash Chander ...Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. Harish Kumar Nain, D.A.G., Haryana. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for counting of his service w.e.f. his initial date of appointment i.e. 16.06.1982 to 12.03.1995 for the purpose of all service benefits on the ground that his service has already been regularized as VLDA w.e.f. 01.11.1986 vide office order dated 25.10.2000 (Annexure P-9); AND/OR issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the benefit of continuity of service w.e.f. 16.06.1982 to 12.03.1995 the petitioner for all intents and purposes with all consequential benefits and if need be, condoned the period from 16.05.1994 to 13.03.1995 on the grounds mentioned in the writ petition. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22642-2026 (O&M) 2 of 11 2. Brief sequence of events in chronological order is as follows:– 03.06.1982: Vide order dated 03.06.1982 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner was appointed on the post of Stock Assistant on adhoc basis. Petitioner joined the said post on 16.06.1982. 11.04.1990: The petitioner had applied to the Director, Animal Husbandry Haryana-respondent No.2 seeking technical resignation w.e.f. 11.04.1990 (A.N.) as petitioner had applied for the post of Taxation Inspector and the petitioner was selected by SSS Board. Accordingly, petitioner sought to resign from the respondent-Department to join as Taxation Inspector. 12.04.1990: Thereafter, petitioner was appointed as Taxation Inspector vide letter dated 12.04.1990 (Annexure P-3). 16.05.1994: Vide order dated 16.05.1994 (Annexure P-4), services of the petitioner as Taxation Inspector were terminated as the selection list had been challenged and services of 85 Taxation Inspectors were terminated including the petitioner. 21.06.1994: Thereafter, vide representation dated 21.06.1994 (Annexure P-5), petitioner requested the respondent No.2-Department to take him back into service as VLDA (re-designated post of Stock Assistant). 06.03.1995: The said application was accepted and petitioner was again appointed as VLDA vide Appointment Letter dated 06.03.1995 (Annexure P-5/A); and Petitioner joined as VLDA on 13.03.1995. On the basis of Instructions dated 11.06.1974 (Annexure P-6), issued by the Finance DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22642-2026 (O&M) 3 of 11 Department, pay of the petitioner was fixed at minimum pay scale and benefit of previous service was denied to him. 15.09.1998: Accordingly, petitioner had submitted representation dated 15.09.1998 (Annexure P-7) to allow him benefit of past service. 11.09.2000: Vide order dated 11.09.2000 (Annexure P-8), claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he was an adhoc employee and had resigned from his post. As such, his previous services stood forfeited under Rule 4.19 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume-II. 25.10.2000: Vide order dated 25.10.2000 (Annexure P-9), services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 01.11.1986. 03.01.2001: The petitioner again submitted representation dated 03.01.2001 (Annexure P-10) for counting of his past service. 30.05.2005: The petitioner had then served legal notice dated 30.05.2005 (Annexure P-11) upon the respondents. 23.09.2005: Petitioner had also filed CWP-15217-2007 titled as Subhash Chander vs. The State of Haryana and another; which was disposed of vide order dated 23.09.2005 (Annexure P-14) with a direction to the respondents to decide legal notice. 17.03.2006: As the respondents failed to do the needful, petitioner had served Contempt Notice dated 17.03.2006 (Annexure P-15) to respondents. 16.06.2006: In response thereto, the respondents had passed order dated 16.06.2006 (Annexure P-16) rejecting the claim of the petitioner. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22642-2026 (O&M) 4 of 11 17.09.2008: Petitioner had then filed another CWP-7690-2007 titled as Subhash Chander, Hisar vs. State of Haryana and another, which was also disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2008 (Annexure P-18) directing the respondent No.1 to pass a speaking order. 12.01.2009: Pursuant thereto, petitioner submitted another representation dated 12.01.2009 (Annexure P-19). 15.04.2009: Again, vide order dated 15.04.2009 (Annexure P-20), claim of the petitioner was rejected. 30.12.2016: Vide order dated 30.12.2016 (Annexure P-21), petitioner’s request for voluntary retirement was duly sanctioned and services of the petitioner were dispensed with w.e.f. 31.12.2016. 06.05.2022: Thereafter petitioner again filed CWP-9424-2022 titled as Subhash Chander vs. State of Haryana and another, which came to be disposed of as not pressed vide order dated 06.05.2022 (Annexure P-23) with liberty to the petitioner to approach higher authorities. 01.06.2022: Accordingly, on 01.06.2022, petitioner submitted yet another representation (Annexure P-24). 05.09.2025: Vide the impugned order dated 05.09.2025 (Annexure P-25), claim of the petitioner has been rejected. 3. It is in the conspectus of the above facts that the present Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer that services of the petitioner w.e.f. his initial date of appointment i.e. 16.06.1982 upto 12.03.1995 be counted DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22642-2026 (O&M) 5 of 11 especially in view of the fact that services of the petitioner have already been regularized as VLDA w.e.f. 01.11.1986. 4. It is inter alia submitted by ld. counsel for the petitioner that respondents are in error in rejecting the case of the petitioner time and again in violation of the applicable rules. The impugned order is liable to be set-aside as many crucial facts/ issues which go the root of the matter have been lost sight of. The petitioner was entitled to be regularized against a direct quota post of Stock Assistant in the Department of Animal Husbandry on the basis of his continuous service with effect from 01.06.1982 as is evident from the fact that vide Order dated 25.10.2000, he has been regularized as VLDA (re-designate post of Stock Assistant). From this order, it becomes clear that the department did recognize his lien on the basis of Stock Assistant VLDA, on the basis of his continuous service with effect from 1982. It is also a positive case of the petitioner that by no specific order in writing, his lien was terminated. Therefore, since lien was not specifically terminated, he continued serving the Taxation Department till 1994 on provisional basis with his deemed lien in the respondent Department. 5. It is submitted that it was the duty of the Animal Husbandry Department to allow him to join in his parent department, where his lien was retained. Therefore, it is no fault of the petitioner and rather it is omission on the part of the Department to allow him to join back in his services. Thus, for the intervening period i.e. from 16.05.1994 to DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22642-2026 (O&M) 6 of 11 12.05.1995 when the petitioner remained out of service for the above omission on the part of the Animal Husbandry Department to allow him to join, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. 6. It is submitted that in the impugned order (P-25), it has wrongly been stated that after submitting resignation benefit of past service cannot be given, whereas, in the present case the petitioner had applied through proper channel and is thus supported by provisions of Punjab Civil Service rules as applicable to Haryana with special reference to Rule 4.19 (b). It has also been wrongly stated in the order that employee cannot get increment, whereas his case is fully supported by the above submissions and corresponding rules of Punjab CSR. It has also been wrongly stated in the order that the pay scale of ETI was higher because this is of no consequence. 7. Ld. Counsel further submits that it is wrong to allege in the impugned order that the past service cannot be counted because the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared the appointments as illegal. It is contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has never ordered that the service so rendered by these employees and the salary so drawn of these employees for 4 years is also to be recovered back or to be forfeited. 8. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have denied benefit of increment to the petitioner on the ground that services of the petitioner as Taxation Inspector were DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22642-2026 (O&M) 7 of 11 provisional. Learned counsel contends that the said reasoning is incorrect as the petitioner has rendered service in the Animal Husbandry Department on adhoc basis and in the Excise and Taxation Department as deemed service on adhoc basis on identical scale. As such, petitioner is entitled to claim benefit of increment for the entire period. He accordingly prays that the present Writ Petition be allowed; and direction be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for counting of his service w.e.f. his initial date of appointment i.e. 16.06.1982 to 12.03.1995 for the purpose of all service benefits. 9. Per contra, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and stated that as has been informed to the petitioner ad infinitum, there was a break in his service; and, therefore, benefit of past service cannot be accorded to the petitioner. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Petition. 10. No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions of the petitioner. 11. Factual matrix of the case noted herein above amply establishes that there was break in the service of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the petitioner had sought technical resignation from the respondent-Parent Department i.e. Department of Animal Husbandry vide request letter dated 11.04.1990 (Annexure P-2). The same was accepted by respondent-Department; and in pursuance to which petitioner was DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22642-2026 (O&M) 8 of 11 duly appointed and had joined as Taxation Inspector on 12.04.1990 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, services of the petitioner as Taxation Inspector had been terminated vide order dated 16.05.1994 (Annexure P-4). Petitioner had made a request on 21.06.1994 (Annexure P-5) to respondent No.2 to take him back into service. The said request was accepted by the respondent-Department and petitioner was again selected vide order dated 06.03.1995 (Annexure P-5/A) and had joined as VLDA on 13.03.1995. Clearly therefore, there has been break of almost 5 years in the services of the petitioner. On this short ground, petitioner cannot be accorded benefit of the service previously rendered by him in the respondent-Department. 12. No doubt, service of the petitioner was subsequently regularized as VLDA vide order dated 28.01.2000 (Annexure P-9) w.e.f. 01.11.1986. However, no benefit of the same would accrue to the petitioner as, at the time of his resignation, neither any lien of the petitioner was kept in the respondent-Department nor he was entitled for the same. As his appointment was not covered under the provisions of Rule 2.35 of the Civil Service Rules Vol.1, upon technical resignation of the petitioner from the respondent-Department on 11.04.1990, there was complete severance of employer-employee relationship between the parties. Appointment of the petitioner on 06.03.1995 was a fresh appointment upon advice from the Commission. Furthermore, services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 01.11.1986 after re-joining the DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22642-2026 (O&M) 9 of 11 respondent-Department back on 13.03.1995. As the petitioner was out of service before 13.03.1995, therefore, as per the relevant rules, no benefit of increment is to be granted to the petitioner. 13. It is to be noted that after resigning from the respondent- Department, petitioner was appointed as Taxation Inspector on 12.04.1990 in pursuance to selection of Taxation Inspectors as recommended by the Haryana Subordinate Service Selection Board. However, the said selection was challenged. Ultimately, vide judgment dated 12.05.1994 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishan Yadav and others vs. State of Haryana and others (Civil Appeal No. 726 of 1993 and 727 of 1993), the said selection was sat aside being illegal. Consequentially, services of 85 Taxation Inspectors including the petitioner were terminated by the Excise and Taxation Department vide order dated 16.05.1994 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, petitioner was again selected in the respondent-Animal Husbandry Department on 06.03.1995 (Annexure P-5/A) and joined on 13.03.1995. However, for the period 16.05.1994 till 13.03.1995, petitioner was not in Service and there was irretrievable break in the service of the petitioner. Contention of the petitioner that while declaring the selection of Taxation Inspectors as illegal, the Hon’ble Apex Court had nowhere stated that past Service is not to be counted. However, the said contention is Palpably erroneous as once a selection is declared illegal, the said Service cannot be counted. For this reason, past service cannot be considered. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22642-2026 (O&M) 10 of 11 14. It has to be appreciated that reliance of the petitioner upon Govt. Instructions dated 11.06.1974 (Annexure P-6) is misplaced as the case of the petitioner is of a different nature. As per the said Instructions dated 11.06.1974 (Annexure P-6), increments on account of adhoc service should be allowed in cases where an adhoc employee has resigned his post to take up a regular appointment in some other Departments under Haryana Government. In the case of the petitioner, this is not so as the petitioner was not on any service/adhoc service prior to joining of the respondent-Department on regular basis. In fact, petitioner was out of service before joining the Department on 13.03.1995. Thus, no benefit of increments is admissible to the petitioner under the Govt. Instructions dated 11.06.1974. 15. Even under Rule 4.21 or any other rules/Instructions, benefit of past service is to be granted in normal course meeting all the requirements of the rules. However, the case of the petitioner does not fall under normal course as it is a case of termination of the petitioner from the Taxation Department on account of appointments having been made wrongfully. Thus, benefit of past service cannot be given to the petitioner as the previous service of the petitioner stands forfeited under Rule 4.19 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol.2. 16. Keeping in view the above factual and legal position, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22642-2026 (O&M) 11 of 11 17. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 23.07.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document