Vinod v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:29.05.2026 Vinod ....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present :

Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Atul Bhardwaj, Advocate and Ms. Hemlata, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Addl. AG Haryana.

Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 6.

**** HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure P-8) and order dated 07.11.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby the petitioner's designation was changed from Shift Attendant to ALM (Assistant Lineman), and further for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to correct the

petitioner's designation from ALM to Shift Attendant and permit the petitioner to continue working as a Shift Attendant.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was appointed and has been continuously working as a Shift Attendant since 12.01.2018, and the experience certificate dated 22.01.2026 issued by the respondent department itself clearly records his designation as Shift Attendant. It is further contended that the petitioner was taken by surprise when his designation was abruptly changed from Shift Attendant to ALM vide order dated 07.11.2025 without any notice or justification. Counsel submits that the petitioner immediately submitted representations dated 10.11.2025 and 09.12.2025 requesting correction of his designation; however, the same were illegally rejected vide the impugned order dated 15.05.2026. 2.1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the RTI reply dated 10.10.2025 clearly establishes that the nature of duties and work performed by a Shift Attendant and an ALM are entirely different, thereby demolishing the stand taken by the respondents. It is argued that the sole basis adopted by the respondents for rejecting the petitioner's claim is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable, inasmuch as the respondents relied upon the record of M/s Arial Telecom Company showing the petitioner as ALM in the year 2021, whereas the salary slips issued by the said company itself specifically mention the petitioner's designation as Shift Attendant. It is thus contended that

the impugned orders are factually incorrect, contrary to the record, and liable to be quashed.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, puts in appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the respondentState, and Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate, puts in appearance and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 to 6.

5.

On instructions from Mr. Ranbir Singh, XEN, DHBVNL, Mahendergarh, Haryana, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 6, at the outset, submits that, keeping in view the inadvertent mistake, the respondentCorporation has decided to revisit the order dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure P-8). 6.

In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is satisfied with the stand taken by the respondent-Corporation. However, he submits that the last date for submission of details on the concerned portal has already been expired and the portal has been ordered to be closed. As such, directions may be issued to respondents No.1 and 7 to upload the particulars of the petitioner on the portal against the post of Shift Attendant. 7.

In view of the stand taken by the respondent-Corporation, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.1 and 7 to open the concerned portal, enabling the petitioner to upload his details as Shift Attendant. The needful be done within a period of two weeks from the date of

receipt of a certified copy of this order upon intimation to the petitioner to this effect.

8.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 29.05.2026 parul verma Whether speaking/reasoned. :

Yes/No Whether Reportable. :

Yes/No