Virinderjit Singh Khurana vs State Of Haryana & Ors

CWP Nos. 750-2014 (O&M)
and 18265-2011 (O&M) 1 of 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
204 (2 cases)
Date of Decision: 11.11.2026

1. CWP-750-2014(O&M)
Virinderjit Singh Khurana and another ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s)
AND
2. CWP-18265-2011 (O&M)
Mrs. Bimal Chaudhary and others ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Panwar, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-750-2014.
Mr. Gaurav Tangri, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjay Tangri, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-18265-2011.
Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, D.A.G., Haryana.
*
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CWP-750-2014 (O&M)
Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for the issuance of a
writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction
by quashing the impugned order dated 04.08.2011 (Annexure P/7)
whereby the earlier order dated 24.09.2009 (Annexure P/2) granting ACP
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP Nos. 750-2014 (O&M)
and 18265-2011 (O&M) 2 of 7
scale has been partially modified; and further issuing a writ in the nature
of mandamus for directing the respondent to consider the case of the
petitioners for grant of the benefit of PB-4 i.e., Rs. 37400-67000/- + 8700/-
Grade Pay by including their name in the first list prepared vide order
dated 24.09.2009 (Annexure P-2) and release all the consequential
benefits to the petitioners.
CWP-18265-2011 (O&M)
Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for the issuance of a
writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction
quashing the impugned order dated 04.08.2011 (Annexure P-3) whereby,
the earlier order granting ACP Scale to the petitioners has been modified
and recovery of intervening period has been ordered to be made.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, both
the above said Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order
as the facts and issues involved in both the cases are identical. For the sake
of convenience, facts are being drawn from CWP-750-2014 titled as
Virinderjit Singh Khurana and another vs. State of Haryana and others.
3. It is inter alia submitted by ld. Counsel for the petitioners that
petitioner No.1 was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) and
petitioner No.2 was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on adhoc
basis by the Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Irrigation
Department, Chandigarh and posted as such in the Bhakra Beas
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP Nos. 750-2014 (O&M)
and 18265-2011 (O&M) 3 of 7
Management Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘BBMB’). Both the
petitioners were regularized w.e.f. 31.12.1990. Petitioners were promoted
as Executive Engineer vide order dated 30.07.2007; and had joined as
Executive Engineer in BBMB in October 2007. Thereafter, petitioner No.1
had retired on 31.05.2010; and petitioner No.2 had retired on 30.09.2010
from BBMB.
4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the
petitioner is that vide Instructions dated 19.08.2009 (Annexure P-1), the
Finance Department, Govt. of Haryana had issued Notification directing
improvement in the structure of pay of engineering services by granting
ACP scale in Pay Band 4 (PB-4) to all the Engineers who had completed 17
years of regular satisfactory service. The said benefit was to be granted to
20% of the cadre. It is submitted that functional scale of pay of the post of
Superintending Engineer was already granted to the petitioners from
01.09.2009. Even in the order dated 24.09.2009 (Annexure P-2) issued by
respondent No.1, names of the petitioners were included. However, in the
order dated 04.08.2011 (Annexure P-4), the previous order dated
24.09.2009 was modified and names of the petitioners were not included.
5. Ld. Counsel submits that the first order dated 24.09.2009
(Annexure P/2) was issued by the respondent No.1 showing the name of
90+36 126 officers eligible for grant of benefit of PB-4. The above said figure
was calculated by taking 20% of total 622 cadre posts of SE's, XENs, and AE's
which should exactly be 124. The petitioners were very much eligible as per
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP Nos. 750-2014 (O&M)
and 18265-2011 (O&M) 4 of 7
the first order and their name should figure at Sr. No. 88 and 89 but it was
not included as their ACRs from BBMB was not received in time. The action
of respondent No. 1 & 2 reducing the 35 Nos. post of Superintending
Engineer from 20% of cadre post i.e., from 124 and allowing the benefit of
PB-4 scale to only 124-35-89 officers in modified orders dated 04-08-2011 is
wrong because scale of PB-4, Rs.37400-67000+8700(GP) has become the
functional pay scale for Superintending Engineers w.e.f 1-9-2009 vide
Annexure P-1. So, if posts of superintending Engineers are to be excluded it
should be from total cadre posts i.e 622 and not from 20% of cadre posts
i.e. 124. As such, 35 Nos. of post of SE's should be subtracted from total
cadre post of 622 and to take 20% of the remaining cadre, which comes out
to be 622-35=587×20%=117. So 117 officers are eligible for grant of pay
scale in PB-4 and not 89 officers.
6. It is further submitted that the respondents have prepared the
second order dated 04.08.2011 (Impugned order) by adopting a wrong
method and without giving any opportunity of hearing and show cause
notice to the petitioners.
7. It is accordingly prayed that the present Writ Petition be
allowed; and following prayer be accepted: -
“(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ or direction by quashing the impugned order
dated 04.08.2011 (Annexure P/7) whereby the earlier order
dated 24.09.2009 (Annexure P/2) granting ACP scale to the
petitioner has been partially modified and further issuing a writ
in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondent to
consider the case of the petitioners for grant of the benefit of
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP Nos. 750-2014 (O&M)
and 18265-2011 (O&M) 5 of 7
PB-4 i.e., Rs. 37400-67000/- + 8700/- Grade Pay by including
their name in the first list prepared vide order dated 24-09-
2009 (Annexure-P-2) and release all the consequential benefits
to the petitioners.”
8. Per contra, ld. State Counsel has controverted submissions of
the petitioner and has submitted that benefit of PB-4 was admissible to
20% of the cadre. Petitioners do not fall within the said 20%. The claim of
the petitioners that the said benefit has been accorded to the certain
persons junior to the petitioners, is misconceived as, such benefit if given to
any juniors, already stands withdrawn. He accordingly prays for dismissal of
the present Writ Petition.
9. No other argument is raised on behalf of the ld. Counsel for
the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions of the petitioners.
10. The relevant extract of the written statement dated 18.02.2015
filed by the respondents reads as follows: -
“The existing provisions under Sr. No. 8 (Haryana
Engineering Services) appended to the Haryana Civil Services
(ACP) Rules, 2008 were omitted to be substituted by the
following:-
SDES/AES/ AEEs
After 17 years of
PB-4 (37400-
8700/-
/XENs/ SEs in
regular satisfactory
67000/-)
three wings of
service after entry
PWDs (B&R),
as SDE/AE/AEE and
Irrigation and
limited to 20% of
P.H.
the total cadre
posts in the
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP Nos. 750-2014 (O&M)
and 18265-2011 (O&M) 6 of 7
categories of SDES/
AES/ AEES/Xens
and SEs
4. That in terms of instructions dated 19.08.09 (Annexure
P-1), ACP Scale was admissible w.e.f. 01.09.09. Government
vide Memo No. 16/35/2009-4IE dated 09.09.2009 sanctioned
622 total cadre posts of Superintending Engineers, Executive
Engineers and Assistant Engineers. Therefore 124 officers
(20%) in the cadre of S.E./Xen/AEs were eligible for the grant of
ACP scale. As per seniority list of Class-I officers. Government
vide order No.16/35/2009-4IE dated 24.09.2009 accorded
sanction of ACP scale of Rs. 37400-67000/- + 8700/- Grade Pay
w.e.f. 01.09.2009 to 91 Nos. Executive Engineers whose record
was complete and were eligible. The case of left out officers
was kept pending due to some administrative reasons i.e.
pending disciplinary cases and completion of ACRs etc. It is
further submitted that the pay scale of the post of
Superintending Engineer (promotional post) was also modified
to Rs. 37400-67000/- + 8700/- Grade Pay w.e.f. 01.09.2009 and
35 Nos. Superintending Engineers had been granted the ACP
scale by the respondent department w.e.f. 01.09.2009. Thus
this revised scale was admissible to remaining 89 Executive
Engineers only in the total cadre posts of SDEs/AES/AEEs/Xen's
and SE's but the same had been granted in excess
inadvertently. This was observed by the Audit party of Finance
Department during inspection. In order to comply with the
same and considering the total cadre posts, revised orders for
the grant of ACP scale had been issued vide Government order
No. 16/35/2009-4IE dated 04.08.2011 (Annexure P-7). It is also
submitted that S/Sh. Jasmer Singh and Atul Narang, Executive
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP Nos. 750-2014 (O&M)
and 18265-2011 (O&M) 7 of 7
Engineers junior to the petitioner earlier granted ACP scale
w.e.f. 01.09.2009 were later on granted the benefit of ACP
scale w.e.f. 01.08.2011 vide Annexure P-7 when the petitioners
were not in service. Petitioners had made a representation for
which suitable reply was given to them vide Annexure P-5 & 6.”
11. It is also pertinent to note that in terms of the Finance
Department Instructions dated 19.08.2009 (Annexure P-1) the ACP scale in
PB-4 of Rs. 37400-67000/- + 8700/ G.P. is admissible after 17 years of
regular satisfactory service after entry as SDE/AE/AEE/Xen and limited to
20% of the total cadre posts in the categories of SDES/AES/AEEs/Xens and
SEs. The Instructions dated 19.08.2009 are self-explanatory that while
making calculation of 20% of total cadre post of Superintending Engineers is
required to be included in the 20%. Hence subtraction of 35 posts of SEs is
not possible to be excluded from total cadre of 622 posts. Therefore, the
calculation of 20% of the cadre posts i.e. 124 (622 x 20/100) is
mathematically correct and calculation of admissible Executive Engineers
i.e. 89 (124-35) is also correct.
12. No replication has been filed by the petitioners controverting
the above said assertions made in the written statement.
13. Consequentially, both the Writ Petitions stand dismissed .
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
11.11.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document