Kanta Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Ors

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-17007-2001 (O&M)

Kanta Sharma ... Petitioner
VS.
State of Punjab & Ors. ... Respondents

1. Judgment reserved on 03.07.2026
2. Judgment pronounced on 31.08.2026
3. Judgment uploaded on 02.09.2026
4. Whether operative or full judgment Full
5. Delay in pronouncement of full judgment and reasons, if any NA

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Satnam Preet Singh Chauhan, DAG Punjab

Sandeep Moudgil, J.


(1). The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226
inter alia
of the Constitution of India, , for issuing a writ of certiorari for
quashing the impugned order dated 04.10.2001 (Annexure P5) whereby the
petitioner has been given seniority as Clerk w.e.f. 11.06.1968 i.e. the date from
when Amarjit Singh Sodhi was given seniority as Clerk, however, his seniority
as Senior Assistant has been fixed w.e.f. 07.01.1986 and as Superintendent
w.e.f. 07.01.1993 on the divisional basis.

(2). The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the Excise and
Taxation Department on 07.07.1967 and was regularized w.e.f. 03.03.1969.
She passed the Assistant Grade Examination on 18.09.1985 and was promoted
as Senior Assistant on 07.01.1986 and thereafter as Superintendent on
07.01.1993. Her grievance is that although this Court in RSA No.63 of 1991
held that under Rule 10 of the Punjab Excise and Taxation Department
Subordinate Offices (Ministerial) Class III Service Rules, 1964 (in short the
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.09.02 13:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-17007-2001 - 2 -




1964 Rules), the seniority of ministerial employees was required to be
maintained at the State level and not at the Divisional level, the respondents
continued to determine her promotional seniority at Divisional level, resulting
in denial of her promotion to the post of Excise and Taxation Officer while
extending such benefit to persons allegedly junior to her.

(3). The record reveals that pursuant to the directions issued by this
Court vide order dated 19.07.2001 in CWP No.10308 of 2001, the impugned
order dated 04.10.2001 came to be passed whereby the respondents granted the
petitioner the benefit of seniority as Clerk w.e.f. 11.06.1968, but held that her
dates of promotion as Senior Assistant and Superintendent would continue to
remain 07.01.1986 and 07.01.1993, respectively.

(4). Hence this writ petition.

(5). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once this Court, in
RSA No.63 of 1991, declared that the executive instructions dated 31.10.1988
providing for divisional seniority were contrary to the statutory Rules and held
that seniority was required to be maintained at the State level, the respondents
could not have continued to determine the petitioner's promotional seniority on
divisional basis. It is argued that had the statutory Rules been correctly
implemented, the petitioner would have ranked senior to Chander Kanta,
Amarjit Singh Kahlon and Harjit Singh Bedi and consequently would have
been promoted as Excise and Taxation Officer against the vacancies available
prior to abolition of the promotional quota.

(6). Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the respondents
duly reconsidered the petitioner's representation in compliance with the earlier
directions issued by this Court. It is contended that although the petitioner's
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.09.02 13:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-17007-2001 - 3 -




seniority as Clerk was revised, no change was required in her dates of
promotion as Senior Assistant and Superintendent. It is further submitted that
the officers with whom comparison has been sought, belonged to different
Divisions and had earned their promotions against vacancies available in their
respective Divisions under the then prevailing seniority arrangement. It is also
submitted that the litigation concerning the divisional seniority attained finality
on 06.05.1996 and, therefore, promotions made prior thereto could not be
reopened. Lastly, it is contended that the promotional quota available to the
ministerial staff for appointment as Excise and Taxation Officer stood
abolished w.e.f. 27.01.1992 and, therefore, no enforceable right survived in
favour of the petitioner.

(7). Heard learned counsel for the parties and the judgment was kept
reserved on 03.07.2026.

(8). There is no dispute with the proposition that the statutory service
rules would prevail over executive instructions inconsistent therewith. The
petitioner specifically relies upon the judgment rendered by this Court in RSA
No.63 of 1991, whereby the legal position regarding maintenance of seniority
at the State level under the applicable statutory Rules was declared. The
respondents themselves rely upon the said litigation and have placed on record
the instructions dated 31.10.1988 (Annexure R-1) and the subsequent
communication dated 02.06.1996 (Annexure R-2). Thus, the controversy is not
as to whether the respondents were required to ultimately prepare State-level
seniority, but whether the petitioner's claim could nevertheless be rejected by
merely asserting that the employees with whom she sought comparison had
been promoted earlier in their respective Divisions.
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.09.02 13:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-17007-2001 - 4 -





(9). The petitioner has pleaded specific facts forming the basis of her
grievance, namely, her date of appointment and regularization, her dates of
promotion, the dates on which vacancies of Excise and Taxation Officers
allegedly became available and the names and dates of promotion of the
employees whom she claims to be junior to her. The petitioner joined the
respondent-Department as Clerk on 07.07.1967 and passed the departmental
examination on 18.09.1985 whereafter she was promoted as Senior Assistant
on 07.01.1986 whereas Smt. Chander Kanta joined as Clerk on 06.08.1968 and
passed the said examination on 14.09.1986 followed by her promotion as
Senior Assistant on 24.11.1986 and as such, she is junior ot he petitioner in all
aspects.

(10). The respondents, in answer thereto, have taken a specific and
positive stand that the said employees were not junior to the petitioner because
the seniority of the ministerial staff was being maintained on divisional basis
and that, even on the subsequent State-level seniority exercise, the petitioner
continued to rank below them. The aforesaid assertion constituted the very
basis for denying the petitioner's claim. Therefore, once such a specific defence
was taken by the respondents, it was incumbent upon them to substantiate the
same from the relevant official record. Significantly, the respondents have
placed no seniority list, comparative statement or other contemporaneous
record to demonstrate the petitioner's inter se position vis-à-vis Chander Kanta,
Amarjit Singh Kahlon and Harjit Singh Bedi or to show how her claim was
considered against the vacancies which had arisen prior to 27.01.1992.

(11). The petitioner having laid the factual foundation of her claim, the
respondents, who relied upon the departmental seniority position to deny it,
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.09.02 13:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-17007-2001 - 5 -




were required to substantiate that position from the official record maintained
by them. A mere assertion in the written statement that the other employees
were senior cannot substitute such record. Likewise, the abolition of the
ministerial quota for promotion to the post of Excise and Taxation Officer
w.e.f. 27.01.1992 does not answer the petitioner's claim in respect of vacancies
which, according to her, had arisen prior thereto. The respondents were
required to establish that she was not entitled to consideration against such
vacancies on the basis of the legally applicable seniority and eligibility, once
she stood promoted to the post of Clerk w.e.f. 11.06.1968 in view of ratio of
RSA-63-1991.

(12). This Court is conscious that correction of seniority does not, by
itself, confer an automatic right to retrospective promotion. However, before
denying such consequential consideration, the respondents were required to
determine the petitioner's claim on the basis of the State-level seniority
mandated under the statutory Rules and keeping in view the essence of the
judgment of this Court in RSA No.63 of 1991 and justify the denial of
promotions to the petitioner. In the absence of the relevant material
demonstrating that, even on such basis, the petitioner remained junior to the
persons relied upon by her, the impugned decision cannot be sustained.

(13). Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 04.10.2001 (Annexure P-5), insofar as it maintains the petitioner's
promotional seniority as Senior Assistant and Superintendent on divisional
basis and consequentially denies consideration of her claim for promotion
from the date her juniors were promoted, is set aside. The respondents are
directed to reconsider the petitioner's seniority and consequential claim for
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.09.02 13:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-17007-2001 - 6 -




promotion with reference to the vacancies which had arisen prior to
27.01.1992, by applying the legally permissible State-level seniority in
accordance with the statutory Rules and the judgment in RSA No.63 of 1991.
If, upon such reconsideration, the petitioner is found entitled to promotion
including that of as Excise and Taxation Officer, she shall be granted the
deemed date of promotion with all consequential benefits, including notional
three
seniority, as admissible in law. The exercise shall be completed within
months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and in case she
is found entitled to, the necessary service/monetary benefits shall be worked
one month
out and disbursed to her within thereafter with interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date they became due till its actual realisation.

(14). The present writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

(15).
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.


31.08.2026
(Sandeep Moudgil)
V.Vishal
Judge
Yes/No
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? :
2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No

V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.09.02 13:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document