The High Court
Case Details
CWP-12609-2025 2025 (O&M) Page 1 of 5 114 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB ARH CHANDIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA AT ASHOK YADA YADAV M) CWP-12609-2025 (O&M) 2025 Date of Decision: 05.05.2025 Vs. ioner . . . . Petitioner UNION TERR TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AN AND OTHERS **** s . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ CORAM: HO HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEE HO SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA **** Mr. B.S. Patwalia, Advocate Present: M for the petitioner. for M Mrs. Madhu Dayal, Addl. Standing M Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Jr. Panel Coun for respondents No.1 and 2. for tanding Counsel, U.T. with l Counsel, U.T. SANJEEV PR ral) V PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) **** 1. Learned arned counsel for the petitioner submits titled submits that the petitioner was entitled for notion notional fixation for the period 01.10. eing 01.10.2012 to 07.07.2015 upon being offered the same post for which he had bee the ad been earlier selected, and from the e date. same date 2. Brief fac ief facts which we notice for adjudicati that udication of this writ petition are that the writ writ petitioner was initially appointe t on pointed as a Scientific Assistant on 14.08.200 .08.2006; thereafter he was selected for aster ted for the post of TGT Maths Master in Educat 010. Education Department on 07.12.2010. 3. An adver advertisement was issued on 05.08.20 st of .08.2017 for selection on the post of Masters/ sters/lady Masters Mathematics. Ther said s. There were four posts in the said subject, o ject, out of which three were meant for was ant for General Category and one was reserved served for OBC category. The petitione n the etitioner was declared selected in the MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.08 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12609-2025 2025 (O&M) Page 2 of 5 final mer al merit list and was placed at No.1 in th gory. .1 in the waiting list in OBC category. One Ajay e Ajay Kumar was selected, whose a
Legal Reasoning
d by hose appointment was challenged by one Ram e Raminderjit Kaur in OA No.212/CH s of 12/CH/2010 claiming that marks of written te itten test were not to be included in th umar d in the final merit list. Ajay Kumar resigned signed and the petitioner being next in vide the merit list was appointed vide order dat er dated 09.11.2010. He was therefore Kaur refore impleaded by Raminderjit Kaur as respon respondent in OA No.212/CH/2010 w that 010 which was decided holding that marks of rks of written tests were not to be add
Decision
order e added to the final merit. The order dated 11. ted 11.05.2011 was challenged before e the efore this Court and then before the Supreme preme Court, and the order dated 11.0 merit d 11.05.2011 was upheld. The merit was there s therefore re-casted excluding marks o ioner arks of written test, and the petitioner was rem s removed from service vide order da was rder dated 28.08.2012. Since he was already w eady working on the lower post of Scien erted f Scientific Assistant, he was reverted back to t ck to the post of Sr. Quality Assurant E ined urant Establishment, where he joined back on ck on the post on which he was holdi from s holding lien. Other candidates from different ferent streams also approached the Tri - the Tribunal in another OA No.1000- CH-2010 2010 titled as ‘Shalu Chawla vs. arh vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh Administ inistration’, and the Tribunal again test again held that marks of written test were not re not to be added to final merit list. C idate list. Consequently, the last candidate namely mely Arpana Mahajan was ordered to ated red to be removed vide order dated 16.11.201 r .11.2012. She challenged her termination before term ntral the Central Administ ministrative Tribunal (CAT) which was t she ch was allowed on the ground that she was not s not the least meritorious candidate 2013 didate. The order dated 28.03.2013 passed b ssed by the CAT in her favour was dents was challenged by the respondents before th fore this Court in CWP-16336-2013. Af ngth, 13. After examining the case at length, the order order of the Tribunal was modified arks dified holding that only five marks MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.08 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12609-2025 2025 (O&M) Page 3 of 5 ssigned to the descriptive test were requi assigned arks quired to be excluded while marks of remain remaining written test (95 marks) were ation were to be included for consideration of the me the merit. Directions were therefore issu t list. fore issued for revising the merit list. Applying plying the said judgment, the merit l the merit list was again revised and the petitioner titioner (herein) was found to be the top was the top-scorer in his category and was therefore refore reinstated on the post of teacher - acher (Maths). The petitioner was re- appointed pointed on 07.07.2015. He was how it of s however not given the benefit of service f vice from his original date of appoin the appointment i.e.09.11.2010, and the appointm pointment was treated as a fresh a ed a resh appointment. He submitted a represent resentation, and after considering the d on g the same, the order was passed on 12.12.201 .12.2018, whereby following decision w ision was taken: “Reference your request dat st dated 05.12.2017 on the subject cited above. su It is to inform you that your r ur request for the grant of consequential benefits by giving the co the seniority, confirmation w.e.f. 07.12.2010 has been considere w. sidered by this office and it as been decided that you are entit as entitled for seniority from intial appointment i.e. 15.11.2010. int Further, your request for th or the grant of financial benefits for the period you served i be ed in Ministry of Defence (DGQA), Muradnagar, Ghaziabad (D abad, U.P. as Scientific Assistant for the period w.e.f. 01.10.2 As .10.2012 to 07.07.2015 has been considered and not acceded to. be to.” 4. In the m the meanwhile, the petitioner had also 018, ad also preferred OA No.1001/2018, wherein h erein he claimed as under: “i) It is therefore respectfully tfully prayed that direction may kindly be issued to the resp ma respondents to treat the original appointment of the applic or pplicant vide letter dated 09.11.2010 09 as (Annexure A-4) as the actual date of appointment with all consequential b ap ial benefits in favour of the MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.08 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12609-2025 2025 (O&M) Page 4 of 5 applicant on his being reinstated in ap d in service on the basis of merit revised under the directions o me ns of Hon'ble High Court after excluding the pay earned by him aft y him during the period he remained out of service, from p rem m previous employer by availing the lien. av ii) Respondent No. 1 and 2 ma 2 may kindly be directed to refix the pay of Applicant on the ref the basis of his original appointment dated 09.11.2010, by g ap by granting the increments for the entire period prior to his rein for s reinstatement on his being reappointed.” rea 5. Taking n g note of the order dated 12.12.2018 had 2.2018, as well as the facts which had come on me on record, the CAT refused to gran r the to grant him notional fixation for the period fr from 01.10.2012 to 07.07.2015, an at in 15, and at the same time held that in case his p se his pay on the post on which he held n the e held lien earlier was higher than the pay fixed y fixed in the current department, the sa e can the same can be protected and he can be placed placed in the pay appropriately. 6. Learned arned counsel submits that similarly p ilarly placed persons namely Arpana pana Mahajan hajan and other persons who had be e on ad been terminated from service on account o ount of the earlier view taken by the C nefit the CAT, had been given the benefit of notion notional pay fixation, and the petitione ilarly etitioner too therefore being similarly placed, is ced, is entitled for the notional pay fixa y fixation. 7. The notio e notional pay fixation in ordinary sen son is sense is granted when a person is treated to ated to be in continuous service on the case, on the said post. In the present case, the petiti petitioner’s termination from service him service was not challenged by him earlier. H lier. He has been offered appointment o ment t only on the basis of a judgment passed in ssed in another case, where the Court di it list. ourt directed for revising the merit list. After the ter the merit list was revised, the petit ent. e petitioner was offered appointment. He was g was granted confirmation and seniorit r the seniority from 07.12.2010, but for the MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.08 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12609-2025 2025 (O&M) Page 5 of 5 period fr riod from 01.10.2012 to 07.07.2015, sin other 15, since he was working on another post of st of Scientific Assistant where he and re he had drawn actual pay and allowanc owances, the benefit of notional pay fix ay fixation has been denied. 8. In our o our opinion, no person can be allow even allowed to draw dual salary, even notionall tionally. Once the petitioner had admit other admittedly been working on another post for w st for which he was drawing regular sa is no lar salary and increments, there is no occasion casion to give him notional fixation for give ion for the present post and also give him incre increments. 9. We also n also notice that the CAT has already p e has eady protected the petitioner, if he has been draw en drawing higher salary during the sa eriod the said period. Thus, for the period from 01. m 01.10.2012 to 07.07.2015, on acco other account of continuing on the other post, in c in case he has drawn increments resu t the ts resulting in his being placed at the higher le her level in the pay, the same would relief would be protected. No further relief could hav uld have been granted to him, other than nted er than what has been already granted by the CA the CAT. 10. The writ e writ petition fails, and the same is acc e is accordingly dismissed. 11. All pend ll pending applications also stand dispose disposed of. (SANJE ANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) (ME JUDGE 05.05.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether s 2. Whether r er speaking/reasoned? er reportable? Ye Yes Yes Ye MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.08 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document