Punjab and Haryana High Court
CWP/25361/2021 of CHANDER PARKASH SHARMA Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS on 10 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 217 CWP-25361-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.09.2026 Chander Parkash Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present : Mr. B.K. Bagri, Advocate for the petitioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-25361-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.09.2026
Chander Parkash Sharma
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present :
Mr. B.K. Bagri, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG, Haryana Mr. P.S. Kaushik and Mr. Daksh Saini, Advocates for Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Learned counsel submits that condition No.VI mentioned in the preliminary objection No.1 of the written statement filed by Personnel Officer of HSMITC-respondent No.3 is not applicable as it relates to a retrenched employee, who has either not joined or resigned, however, the petitioner had been compulsorily retired after having joined. In wake of the above, he is entitled to Honorarium and 1st ACP on the basis of 8 years of service, after joining as also is entitled to increment on the basis of judgment in the case of Umed Singh and Another vs. State of Haryana and Others, CWP-5031- 2024, decided on 01.07.2026 along-with other connected cases and Bharat and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, CWP-11006-2016, decided on 25.07.2022, wherein it has been held that qua the retrenched employee on the exception can be made from passing type test as also the judgment in the case of Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Haryana and Others, MOHIT 2026.09.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-25361-2021 (O&M)
CWP-7695-2021, decided on 30.10.2023, is also not applicable as it relates to an employee, who had either not joined or resigned. In wake of the above, he thus prays that the claim of the petitioner needs to be considered.
2. The above facts having been brought out, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for respondent No.3 on instructions fairly states that the authority would not be averse to having a relook at the matter and consider it, taking note of the aforesaid submissions and the judgments referred to hereinabove, and decide the same, within a period of 6 months, in accordance with law, after affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the LRs of the petitioner, which this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not be addressed in a just, fair and reasonable manner.
3. The matter stands disposed of accordingly and if the LRs of the petitioner are found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to their interest, the same shall contain reasons and they shall be free to seek legal redress thereupon. (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE 10.09.2026 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No MOHIT 2026.09.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document