Vikas Kumar v. Union Of India And Others

VIKAS K

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

AT CHA F PUNJAB AND HARYANA ANDIGARH CWP-122 Date of D 216-2026 (O&M) Decision : 23.04.2026 KUMAR ........Petitioner US VERSU OF INDIA AND OTHERS UNION O

CORAM

Present:

........Respondent M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI DEEPAK MANCHANDA I HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D Mr. D.S Patwalia, Senior Ad Ms. Rishu Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Promila Nain, Senior Pan Mr. Ish Karan Singh Chhabra for the respondent No.1-Unio Mr. Avinit Avasthi, Addition Mr. Brijeshwar Vashisht, Jun for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

MRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral dvocate with nel Counsel with a, Central Government Counsel on of India.

nal Standing Counsel with nior Panel Counsel HARSIM 1.

l) In the present petition, the e challenge is to the order da ated 26.11.202 25 (Annexure P-1) passed by th he Central Administrative Tribu unal (for short "Tribunal") in OA No.60/0097 8 of 2025, which OA was filed for setting as side the order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the Estate Office, U U.T., Chandiga arh, by which the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Jun nior Assistant and further to the post of Cler rk due to the fact that he is be eing treated a as part of the Common Cad dre Rules known as Chandig garh Administr ration Group 'C' (Clerk and Steno-Typist) (Common Cad dre) Recruitme ent Rules, 2015, which Rules h ave been wrongly made applica able vide Not ification dated 29.05.2015 to Group-C employees (Clerks a and Stenos)/Ju unior Assistant in the Estate Offi ice.

-22.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that while working on the post of Clerk, the petitioner got promotion to the post of Junior Assistant vide order dated 13.05.2022, and further vide Departmental Promotion Committee held on 24.07.2024, he was conditionally promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector, which promotion was withdrawn vide order dated 28.08.2025 on fulfilment of condition that an employee senior to the petitioner, who was facing departmental proceedings and was superseded, which pendency of the departmental proceedings was the reason for the grant of said promotion to petitioner, which employee was later on exonerated of the allegations alleged against him and in order to adjust such employee over and above the petitioner, such employee being senior to the petitioner, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Clerk. After such reversion to the said post of Clerk, the petitioner was made the part of the Common Cadre Rules, 2015 and was posted in the Department of Police, as a Clerk.

3.

The challenge raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal against action of the respondent whereby he has been treated as the part of the Common Cadre Rules, 2015 has been negativated by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 26.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) to hold that all the Group-C employees, who were working on Group-C posts at the time when the 2015 Rules were promulgated, are to be treated as a part of the Common Cadre Rules, 2015.

4.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argues that even if the Common Cadre Rules, 2015 are to be made applicable upon the petitioner and other employees, the same has to be implemented in a manner so that

-3same does not result in loss of seniority, allowance or promotion admissible to such employees. Learned counsel further submits that however, by bringing petitioner into the Common Cadre Rules, 2015, other employees falling in same class and working in other department, who became part of Common Cadre Rules, 2015, such employees, who got promotion to Group-C post prior to petitioner. have been treated as senior, and in the seniority list the petitioner has been brought down, therefore, the said act of the respondent is contrary to the Notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 29.03.2022, which has not been appreciated by the Tribunal in the correct perspective.

5.

We have heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the present case with his able assistance. 6.

Once there is no challenge to the Rules/Notification by which the cadre of Clerks working with the Chandigarh Administration was brought into a Common Cadre to be governed by Common Cadre Rules, 2015 irrespective of the Department in which such Group-C employees were working, the petitioner has to be treated as a part of the Common Cadre Rules. Merely because prior to promotion of the petitioner, though the 2015 Rules were already in operation, but a joint seniority list, as per 2015 Rules, was not framed, same will not entitle the petitioner to contend that even after reversion from the post of Sub Inspector to that of a Junior Assistant and further to the post of Clerk, the petitioner will have a right to continue on the said post in the Estate Office only, where he was working as per 2015 Common Cadre Rules, and he cannot be transferred to other department, which transfer is permissible under Common Cadre Rules, 2015, to which all the Group-C employees have been made subject to.

-47.

Once it is a conceded fact that after the promulgation of the 2015 Rules, i.e. Common Cadre Rules, any employee working on post of Clerk who is working in particular department, can be transferred to another Department of U.T., Chandigarh which was covered by 2015 Rules, and similar action has been taken qua other employees working on post of Clerks who have been working in the Estate Office hence, the petitioner cannot claim exemption from such action or from being governed by the Common Cadre Rules, 2015. Hence, treating the petitioner as part of the Common Cadre, which is the only Common Cadre available as per the 2015 Rules, and which action has been upheld by the Tribunal, needs no interference at the hands of this Court.

8.

The second argument raised by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the seniority which has been fixed by the Department upon his reversion to the post of Junior Assistant and further to the post of Clerk is causing prejudice and is contrary to the Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2022. Rule 2(2) is being brought into operation to contend the same, which is as under:- "2(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), a person appointed to the services and posts under the administrative control of the Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh shall be subject to transfer from one Department to another Department so long as such transfer does not adversely affect the pay and allowances, seniority or promotion and all other financial benefits as applicable to such persons."

9.

A bare perusal of the above would show that the same is only with regard to pay/seniority/promotion and other benefits applicable to such persons. The Common Cadre seniority has to be prepared on the basis of continuous length of service, and once a common seniority of all the Clerks

-5is to be prepared on that basis, it cannot be said that such seniority is causing prejudice or the same is incorrect.

10.

Further, benefit of promotion is to be given on the basis of seniority; hence, merely because the petitioner happened to have a different seniority prior to the promulgation of the Common Cadre Rules while working in a particular Department of the Chandigarh Administration, same will not give him a right to claim such seniority for further promotion after the promulgation of the 2015 Rules. Seniority has been prepared as per 2015 Rules on the basis of continuous length of service in a Cadre by an employee hence any Clerk having more service than the petitioner in the said Cadre has to be treated as senior.

11.

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

12.

Present petition stands dismissed.

13.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 23-04-2026 Sapna Goyal (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE NOTE:

Whether speaking/ reasoned: YES Whether reportable: NO