Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2026 DAILYLAW 38708 (PNJ)

UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD AND ORS v. PARDEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER

LPA/1639/2019 · 2026-09-03

Harsimran Singh Sethi, Minderjeet Yadav

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH S.No. 209 Date of decision : 03.09.2026 1. LPA-1639-2019 (O&M) Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others … Appellants Versus Pardeep Kumar and another …Respondents 2. LPA-1838-2019 (O&M) Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others … Appellants Versus Sunder Singh Rawat and others …Respondents 3. LPA-876-2021 (O&M) Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others … Appellants Versus Rajiv Jain and others …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MINDERJEET YADAV Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate, for the appellant. PARITOSH KUMAR 2026.09.10 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1639-2019 (O&M) and 2 connected cases Page - 2 - of 5 Mr. R.D.Singh, Advocate, Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) CM-2100-LPA-2021 in LPA-876-2021 This is an application for condonation of delay of 205 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application supported by way of an affidavit, the same is allowed and delay of 205 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM-2101-LPA-2021 in LPA-876-2021 This is an application for condonation of delay of 60 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application supported by way of an affidavit, the same is allowed and delay of 60 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main case In the present bunch of appeals, challenge is to the order dated 22.02.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP-6721-2014, by which, stepping-up of pay has been granted to the respondents who belong to the general category on the ground that the reserved category candidate who has superseded the respondents had caught them in the next cadre of Commercial Assistant. 2. As per the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, none of the general category candidate had caught hold of any of PARITOSH KUMAR 2026.09.10 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1639-2019 (O&M) and 2 connected cases Page - 3 - of 5 the junior reserved category candidate who were promoted on the basis of reservation, thus, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is factually incorrect. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that date of promotion from Upper Division Clerk to the post of Circle Assistant have been dealt with by the learned Single Judge by reproducing the chart which shows the details of all the general category candidate (petitioners therein) and all the candidates who were granted promotion (respondents therein) on the basis of the reservation to the cadre of Commercial Assistant and thereafter as Circle Assistant. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that Deep Chand who had superseded the respondents/petitioners was caught up by them in the category of Commercial Assistant and further in the category of Circle Assistants which is clear from the consolidated chart depicted in paragraph 10 of the judgment passed by learned Single Judge. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 6. The only benefit which has been granted to the respondent herein by the learned Single Judge is that once the general category candidates originally senior to a reserved category candidate on promotion, subsequently catches up and becomes senior to such reserved category candidates in the cadre of Commercial Assistants, stepping up of pay at par with the junior reserved category candidate is to be granted. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to rebut the said law that in case any general category candidate who is superseded by the reserved category candidate for promotion and subsequently such General category candidate PARITOSH KUMAR 2026.09.10 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1639-2019 (O&M) and 2 connected cases Page - 4 - of 5 catches up with the reserved category candidate, the stepping up of the pay cannot be denied. 7. The only question raised by the appellants was that none of the general category candidates had caught hold of any of the reserved category candidates, who had superseded to them even as per the chart depicted by the learned Single Judge. 8. It may be noticed that as per the chart taken up for reference by the learned Single Judge, all the petitioners (respondents herein) got promotion on the post of Commercial Assistant starting from the year 2009 onwards till 2011 and one Deep Chand who had superseded them got promotion as Commercial Assistant on 01.07.2008 and did not get any further promotion and ultimately, retired much after promotion of the respondents herein and that too while working on the post of Commercial Assistants, hence, all the respondents herein had caught hold of the reserved category candidates namely Deep Chand in the cadre of Commercial Assistants so as to claim stepping up of the pay equivalent to Deep Chand in such category. 9. 9. Once such fact has gone unrebutted even in the present appeal, the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing that the pay of the respondents should be stepped up equivalent to their juniors who were working in the cadre of Commercial Assistants on the date they got promotion, cannot be regarded perverse keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as well as settled principles of law. The order passed by the learned Single Judge has not been proved to be perverse, hence, no ground for any interference in the impugned judgment is made out. PARITOSH KUMAR 2026.09.10 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1639-2019 (O&M) and 2 connected cases Page - 5 - of 5 10. Dismissed. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 12. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected cases. ( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) JUDGE (MINDERJEET YADAV ) September 03, 2026 JUDGE Paritosh Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No PARITOSH KUMAR 2026.09.10 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document