Devi Sharan vs State Of Punjab And Ors

CWP-7401-2022 (O&M)
)
(1)

HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA
IN TH
AB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGAR
RH

CWP-7401-2
Date of Deci
2022 (O&M)
ision: 04.11.2026


Devi Sharan
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Punj
ab & others
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NA
AMIT KUMAR
Present:
Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate, for
r the petitioner.

Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab
b.


Ms. Brea Sandhu, Advocate, for
r respondent No.4.
NAMIT KU
UMAR, J. (Oral)
1.
The petitioner has invoked the w
writ jurisdiction of this Court by
y
filing the inst
tant petition under Articles 226/2
227 of the Constitution of India,
,
seeking the f
following reliefs:
(i) for issuance of a writ in the
e nature of Certiorari for quashing
g
the impugned order dated 07.01.2
2022 (Annexure P/7), whereby it is
s
held that enquiry period shall no
ot be counted towards qualifying
g
service for granting pensionary be
enefits; and
(ii) for issuance of a writ in the
e nature of mandamus directing the
e
respondents to release all the p
pensionary benefits, i.e. pending
g
gratuity, Balance of Monthly Pens
sion, along-with all the arrears of
f
in-service benefits, alongwith inter
rest @ 18% p.a. for delayed period
d
and all other consequential
benefits, by re-calculating the
e
p
pensionary benefits by counting th
he enquiry period towards servicel,

to the petitioner.”

Learned counsel for the petitio
2.
oner submits that the petitioner
r
initially joine
ed as an Octroi Clerk in the Mu
unicipal Council, Gurdaspur, in
VIMAL KUMAR
n
2026.11.12 12:11
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7401-2022 (O&M)
)
(2)

4. Thereafter, he was granted th
the year 1984
e pay scale of the post of Junior
r
Assistant in t
the year 2012 and was further pr
romoted to the post of Inspector
r
in the year 20
018. He ultimately retired from s
service upon attaining the age of
f
superannuati
on on 30.04.2020. Learned coun
unsel further submits that during
g
his service,
the petitioner was placed u
under suspension on multiple
e
occasions. T
he details of the respective susp
pension periods, as reflected in
n
the letter date
ed 03.11.2020 (Annexure P-8), a
are as under:
Sr.
No.


Suspend/
Reinstated/
Pending Enquiry
Date o
reinstate
of suspension and
Remarks
ement
1. Pending enquiry 14.02.19
995 Resolution
No.230
dated
24.02.1995
995 to 19.09.1995
2. Absent 16.09.19
&
16.11.19
Absence
period
without
salary
996 to 16.04.1996 3 days
996 to 18.07.1996 2 days
996 to 10.12.1996 10 days
997 to 15.01.1997 2 days
997 to 29.02.1997 3 days
997 to 20.03.1997 20 days
997 to 20.04.1997 18 days
997 to 31.05.1997 5 days
997 to 09.06.1997 9 days
997 to 10.07.1997 10 days
998 to 31.10.1998 9 days
998 to 10.11.1998 9 days
998 to 05.08.1999 159 days
999 to 31.12.1999 19 days
000 to 31.12.2001 1 year
001 to 31.12.2001 1 year
002 to 31.12.2003 1 year
003 to 31.12.2003 1 year
004 to 31.12.2004 1 year
004 to 21.06.2004 173 days
004 From
reinstated
during
pending
enquiry
005 10 days
05.10.1995 to
995 = 43 days
3. Suspend 14.04.19
4. Suspend 17.07.19
5. Suspend 01.12.19
6. Suspend 14.01.19
7. Suspend 27.02.19
8. Suspend 01.03.19
9. Suspend 03.04.19
10. Suspend 25.05.19
11. Suspend 01.06.19
12. Suspend 01.07.19
13. Suspend 23.10.19
14. Suspend 01.11.19
15. Suspend 24.11.19
16. Suspend 12.09.19
17. Suspend 01.01.20
18. Suspend 01.01.20
19. Suspend 01.01.20
20. Suspend 01.01.20
21. Suspend 01.01.20
22. Suspend 01.01.20
23. 22.06.20
24. Suspend from 05.04.20
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.12 12:11
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7401-2022 (O&M)
)
(3)

duty
25. Reinstated on
duty, pending
enquiry
15.04.20
005 10 days
26. Suspend 01.05.20
27. Pending enquiry 04.05.20
28. Pending enquiry 31.10.20
29. Reinstated
pending enquiry
005 to 03.05.2005 3 days
005 to 30.06.2005 58 days
005 to 05.06.2006 218 days
006
06.06.20
30. Suspend from
duty
24.12.20
009
31. Reinstated
pending enquiry
06.01.20
010

3.
Learned counsel further submit
ts that neither any charge-sheet
t
was issued t
to the petitioner nor any punish
hment was imposed upon him.

Consequently
y, the respective periods of su
uspension were required to be
e
regularised.
However, the claim of the p
petitioner was rejected by the
e
respondents,
vide impugned order dated 07.0
01.2022 (Annexure P-7), and his
s
retiral benef
fits were calculated without
taking into consideration the
e
aforesaid sus
spension periods.
4.
Per contra, learned counsel
representing respondent No.4
4
submits that
t the petitioner was placed u
under suspension on multiple
e
occasions an
nd was subsequently reinstated in
n service pending conclusion of
f
the respectiv
ve enquiries. She further submi
its that the petitioner was paid
d
provisional p
pension, assessed at Rs.19,011.8
80 per month, with effect from
m
April, 2021 o
onwards and the arrears thereof w
were also released to him.
5.
I have heard learned counsel
for the parties and have also
o
perused the r
record.
6.
The facts are not in dispute that
t the petitioner initially joined as
s
an Octroi Cl
lerk in the year 1984, was grant
ted the pay scale of the post of
f
Junior Assist
tant in the year 2012 and was th
hereafter promoted to the post of
f
Inspector in
the year 2018, from which post
t he retired on 30.04.2020. It is
s
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.12 12:11
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7401-2022 (O&M)
)
(4)

uted that the petitioner was place
also not dispu
ed under suspension on multiple
e
occasions. H
However, nothing has been broug
ght on record by the respondents
s
to establish t
that any charge-sheet was ever is
ssued to the petitioner in respect
t
of the afores
said suspension periods or that
any punishment was ultimately
y
imposed upo
n him.
7.
The Government of Punjab, vid
de instructions dated 26.03.1990,
,
a photocopy
y of which has been placed on
n record during the course of
f
arguments, h
has provided that where discipl
linary proceedings are initiated
d
against an em
mployee for the imposition of
a major penalty, but ultimately
y
only a minor
r penalty is imposed, the period
d of suspension is required to be
e
treated as d
duty period, with the conseque
ential benefits of full pay and
d
allowances. T
The relevant extract of the afores
said instructions reads as under:

“Letter No.13/44/99-2PP-112/5152
2 dated 26.03.1990
Subject: In case, only a min
result of disciplinary
treated as duty perio

I have been directed
nor punishment is awarded as a
y action, the suspension period be
a
e
d.
d that I should draw your attention
n
towards above subject and to say t
that it has been stated vide Punjab
b
Govt. Letter No.1270-2PP-70/158
809 dated 16.5.1978 to the effect
t
that on the proposal of placin
ng every Govt. employee under
r
suspension, the same be considere
ed very carefully and the orders for
r
suspension should be passed only
y if the circumstances are proving
g
the same as correct fully. The s
suspension orders should not be
e
p
passed till there are serious charg
ges against him and on the basis of
f
available material, prima facie the
e case of termination or retirement
t
against the concerned employee s
hould have been prepared and his
s
remaining continuously in servi
ice may create problem in the
e
implementation of the legal action.
.
2. In the light of above show
wn situation, having regard to the
e
Govt. of India Letter No.11012/15
5/85-Estt. (EE dated 21.12.1985) it
t
has been decided that in case the
e departmental action against the
e
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.12 12:11
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7401-2022 (O&M)
)
(5)

employee has been initiated for
awarding major punishment and
d
lastly, he is awarded only a minor
r punishment, then his suspension
n
will be unjustified and he will be
given full pay and allowances for
r
the suspension period by passing a
an appropriate order.
3. This order will be deemed
to be applicable from the date of
f
issuance of this letter. There is
no need to reopen the decisions
s
already taken.”


In the present case, admittedly
8.
y, neither any charge-sheet was
s
issued to the
petitioner nor any punishment w
was imposed upon him. In such
h
circumstance
es, it was incumbent upon the re
espondents to consider the claim
m
of the petitio
oner for regularisation of the sus
spension periods as per Rule 7.3

of the Punja
ab Civil Services Rules, Volum
me I, Part I. The respondents,
,
however, hav
ve failed to examine the case of
f the petitioner in the light of the
e
said Rule. In
nstead, the retiral benefits of the
e petitioner have been calculated
d
by excluding
g the aforesaid suspension perio
ods from his qualifying service.
.
Such action,
in the absence of any material
l justifying the exclusion of the
e
suspension p
eriods, cannot be sustained.
9.
This Court, in Harinder Singh
h Chahal vs. State of Punjab,
,
decided on 30.01.2024) , while
e
2024 NCPH
HHC 13650 (CWP-10857-2021,
referring to t
the judgments rendered by the D
Division Bench of this Court in
n
Y.P. Sehgal v
vs. State of Punjab, 1992(2) SCT
T 179 and Dalip Singh vs. State
e
of Haryana
and another, 2003(4) SCT 2
261 , as well as the judgments
s
rendered by
the learned Single Benches in D
Dr. M.L. Kamra and others vs.

State of Hary
yana and others, 2009(4) SCT 2
27 and O.P. Sindhwani vs. State
e
of Haryana a
and another, 2009(4) SCT 62 , h
as held that where only a minor
r
punishment
is imposed upon an employee,
, he is entitled to full pay and
d
allowances f
for the period of suspension.
The said view reinforces the
e
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.12 12:11
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7401-2022 (O&M)
)
(6)

at the period of suspension cann
principle tha
not be arbitrarily excluded from
m
the service be
enefits of an employee.
10.
In view of the aforesaid disc
cussion, the present petition is
s
allowed. The
e impugned order dated 07.01
1.2022 (Annexure P-7), to the
e
extent it ex
cludes the suspension periods
of the petitioner from being
g
counted towa
ards qualifying service, is hereb
by set aside. Respondent No.4 is
s
directed to tr
reat the suspension periods of th
he petitioner as duty periods and
d
grant him a
all consequential benefits, incl
uding the benefit of pay and
d
allowances f
for the said periods. The arrears
s, if any, arising therefrom shall
l
also be relea
ased to the petitioner within a p
period of three months from the
e
date of receip
pt of a certified copy of this orde
er.

04.11.2026


(NAMIT KUMAR)
JUDGE
Vimal




Yes/No
Yes/No
Whether speaking/reasoned:
Whether reportable:
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.12 12:11
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.