Service – UOI / UT / Punjab / Haryana (General)

Service litigation concerning employees of the Union of India, the Union Territory of Chandigarh, and the State Governments of Punjab and Haryana constitutes a substantial portion of the work adjudicated by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. These disputes arise from administrative, disciplinary, financial, promotional and recruitment decisions taken by governmental departments, statutory bodies, corporations and autonomous institutions operating under the respective jurisdictions. Litigation in this category requires interpretation of service rules specific to each governmental authority, assessment of administrative discretion exercised by decision-makers, and scrutiny of departmental processes that impact the service rights of government employees. Because decisions affecting public employment carry implications for governance, institutional functioning and administrative effectiveness, judicial review in this domain is aimed at ensuring that governmental action conforms to constitutional principles of fairness, transparency, equality and rule of law.

A considerable number of disputes arise from promotional decisions and seniority determinations. Employees approach the High Court challenging adverse entries in service records, non-inclusion in promotion lists, alleged supersession by juniors, incorrect fixation of seniority or irregularities in departmental promotion committees. Authorities rely on service rules, confidential reports, vigilance inputs and suitability assessments to justify their decisions. The High Court examines whether promotion criteria were applied uniformly, whether confidential reports were recorded and communicated in accordance with governing rules, whether selection committees adhered to prescribed procedures and whether seniority lists were drawn up based on lawful principles. Judicial review in these matters ensures that career progression is determined by objective and transparent criteria rather than arbitrary discretion.

Another large class of service disputes involves disciplinary proceedings initiated by government departments. Allegations range from misconduct, dereliction of duty, negligence, financial irregularities and misappropriation to violation of departmental instructions and breach of confidentiality. Employees frequently challenge disciplinary inquiries on grounds of procedural violations, defective charge-sheets, inadequate opportunity to defend, reliance on inadmissible material or disproportionate punishment. Departments defend their actions by referring to the need to maintain administrative discipline, ensure accountability and preserve public trust. The High Court examines whether the inquiry was conducted in accordance with service rules, whether findings are supported by evidence, whether the employee was granted reasonable opportunity of hearing and whether the punishment imposed is proportionate to the nature of misconduct. Judicial review ensures that disciplinary mechanisms are neither arbitrary nor oppressive.

Recruitment and selection disputes represent another significant portion of this category. Candidates challenge rejection of applications, irregularities in written examinations, errors in evaluation, improper application of reservation policies, changes in recruitment criteria or cancellation of recruitment processes. Governmental authorities justify their actions on grounds of administrative necessity, adherence to recruitment rules and compliance with policy decisions. The High Court examines whether recruitment processes were fair, transparent and consistent with statutory rules, whether merit lists were prepared correctly and whether deviations from procedures materially affected the fairness of the process. Judicial intervention ensures that public appointments remain lawful, merit-driven and free from arbitrariness.

Service conditions such as pay scales, increments, stepping-up of pay, fixation of pay on promotion, grant of selection grades, time-bound promotional scales, leave encashment, pension, gratuity, compassionate appointment, suspension and reinstatement also give rise to substantial litigation. Employees contend that departments misinterpreted rules, applied incorrect formulae, issued recovery notices contrary to judicial precedent or denied benefits due under statutory schemes. Departments defend their decisions relying on audit objections, financial constraints, statutory rules or policy instructions. The High Court examines whether financial entitlements were calculated in accordance with applicable rules, whether recoveries are permitted under prevailing jurisprudence, whether pensionary benefits were denied without lawful justification and whether administrative orders comply with constitutional and statutory standards. Judicial scrutiny ensures that financial rights are adjudicated fairly.

Another recurring category involves matters relating to transfers and postings within various government departments. Petitioners often allege mala fide intent, punitive transfers disguised as administrative orders, deviation from transfer policies or disruption of personal and family circumstances. Departments defend transfers as routine administrative measures necessary to maintain efficiency, address workload imbalances or meet institutional requirements. The High Court evaluates whether transfers violate statutory or administrative rules, whether the decision reflects arbitrariness, whether allegations of mala fides are substantiated and whether the transfer order amounts to disguised punishment. Judicial review is limited but remains available to prevent abuse of administrative discretion.

Litigation also arises in connection with medical reimbursement, housing allotment, departmental accommodations, travel allowances, deputation, absorption in alternate departments, regularisation of contractual or ad hoc employees, grant of permanent status and disputes relating to probation. Employees challenge decisions that allegedly violate statutory rules or ignore relevant considerations. Departments justify decisions by referring to administrative guidelines, financial approvals or policy frameworks. The High Court examines whether decisions conform to governing rules, whether policy guidelines were applied consistently and whether administrative discretion was exercised within lawful boundaries. Judicial oversight ensures fairness in the application of benefits integral to service conditions.

A further category concerns allegations of discriminatory treatment, unequal application of policies or violation of legitimate expectations. Employees argue that similarly situated individuals were granted benefits or promotions denied to them without justifiable basis. Departments defend such distinctions by citing differences in qualifications, performance evaluations or service records. The High Court examines whether differentiation is grounded in lawful criteria, whether relevant material was considered and whether decisions undermine principles of fairness and equality. Judicial review safeguards against arbitrary or irrational distinctions within public employment.

Certain disputes stem from actions of statutory bodies, boards, corporations and autonomous institutions functioning under the States of Punjab and Haryana or the Union Territory of Chandigarh. These entities operate under separate service rules or regulations and often exercise a degree of functional autonomy. Litigation in this context involves issues of regularisation, disciplinary action, promotions, recruitment and financial entitlements. The High Court examines whether statutory bodies adhered to their governing regulations, whether decisions were recorded with reasons and whether procedural safeguards were respected. Judicial review ensures accountability of semi-autonomous institutions operating within the public domain.

Across all these categories—promotions, seniority, disciplinary action, recruitment, service conditions, transfers, financial entitlements, regularisation, deputation, probation, discriminatory treatment and decisions of statutory bodies—the Punjab and Haryana High Court ensures that public employment within the Union of India, the Union Territory of Chandigarh, the State of Punjab and the State of Haryana is governed by legal principles, constitutional values and adherence to rule of law. Judicial review in this domain reinforces the importance of fair administrative processes and ensures that public servants are governed by standards consistent with constitutional guarantees of equality, fairness and procedural propriety. The High Court’s role in service jurisprudence remains central to shaping administrative accountability and stabilising governmental functioning across all departments and statutory bodies within its territorial jurisdiction.