← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCOCP/4628/2025disposed of

Sanjeev Bhasin v. Tejvir Singh, Ias And Others

2026-05-27Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl3 pages

[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.05.2026 Sanjeev Bhasin

...Petitioner

Versus

Tejvir Singh and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:

Mr. Arjun Pratap Atma Ram, Advocate and Ms. Ananya Kalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

**** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) CM-9479-CII-2026 1.

This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC along with Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for restoration of the case and recalling of order dated 29.10.2025. 2.

For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the present application is allowed and order dated 29.10.2025 is recalled and the main case is restored to its original number and is taken on Board today itself for final disposal.

Main case 1.

On 07.05.2026, this Court had passed the following order:- "Present:

Mr. Arjun Pratap Atam Ram, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in

[2] the present case, the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.08.2023 had passed the following directions: "9. Given the above discussion, Annexure P-13 is hereby quashed. Further, directions are issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Senior Assistant and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. This exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled to the consequential benefits, which shall further be released within two months."

It is submitted that in pursuance of the said directions, the respondents-authorities were pleased to issue the appointment letter which has been annexed as Annexure A-2 along with the present application and as per which it has been stated that the petitioner is being appointed as Senior Assistant (Group-C) in the cadre of Nagar Improvement Trust on compassionate ground w.e.f. 01.03.2005 in the pay scale of 5800-9200 subject to certain conditions. It is submitted that the said order has been passed subject to the outcome in LPA-3058-2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further highlighted that as per the seniority list (Annexure A-3), one Jagdeep Singh is shown at number 2 whose date of appointment/promotion has been stated to be 02.05.

2006 and thus since the respondents-authorities have, by virtue of the appointment letter which is in force as on date, appointed the present petitioner as Senior Assistant w.e.f. 01.03.2005, thus, as a consequence, the petitioner is required to be shown senior to the said Jagdeep Singh in the seniority list, which has not been done. It is further pointed out that as per the directions of the learned Single Judge, all consequential benefits were also required to be given to the petitioner. Notice in the application.

[3] Mr. Sandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State and prays for an adjournment to get instructions and submit compliance report. Adjourned to 27.05.2026.

May 7th, 2026"

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been promoted from the post of Senior Assistant to Superintendent w.e.f., 04.11.2011 and now, the petitioner is also entitled to further promotion to the post of Executive Officer at par with his junior i.e., Jagdeep Singh.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondents-State, on instructions from Anil Kumar, Senior Assistant, Local Government, has submitted that the petitioner would be promoted from the post of Superintendent to the post of Executive Officer within a period of one month from today. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the same, the present contempt petition be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to revive the same in case the respondents backtrack from the statement made before this Court.

5.

Ordered accordingly.

6.

In case, the respondents backtrack from the statement made before this Court, then, it would be open to the petitioner to move an application for revival of the present contempt petition. 7.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.

27.05.2026 (VIKAS BAHL) Pawan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No