‘Can you bypass a final verdict?’ High Court puts Punjab on notice, seeks explanation

Punjab has virtually landed itself in the crosshairs of contempt proceedings, with the Punjab and Haryana High Court asking the State to explain whether a binding judicial order can be circumvented merely on the Advocate-General’s opinion, and if it was not duty-bound to implement it.

The direction came as the High Court admonished the State for sidestepping a final judicial verdict in an employee’s promotion case before directing the Administrative Secretary, local government, to file an affidavit. He has also been asked to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for “wilful non-compliance” of a binding judgment.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar also made it clear that a judgment could not be diluted or bypassed on the strength of administrative opinion once it had attained finality, particularly when no intra-court appeal had been filed.

Justice Brar was hearing a case concerning a government employee seeking implementation of an earlier judgment granting him notional promotion to the post of Trust Engineer (Horticulture) with consequential benefits, including revision of pension and retirement dues. Despite the judgment having attained finality, the State authorities passed a fresh order reiterating previously rejected grounds, prompting the employee to allege wilful disobedience and seek enforcement of the court’s directions along with initiation of contempt proceedings.

After hearing counsel Dhiraj Chawla on the petitioner’s behalf and going through the rival contentions, Justice Brar ordered: “The Administrative Secretary, in charge of the local government (Punjab), is directed to file his affidavit explaining whether the respondent is not bound to implement the judgment rendered by this court and whether they can circumvent the same merely on the basis of opinion.”

Justice Brar, at the same time, put the State on notice over possible contempt action. “The affidavit should also address why proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution of India should not be initiated for wilful non-compliance as once a judgment has attained finality and particularly when no intra Court appeal has been filed against the judgment rendered by this court.”

The background

The petitioner, who served the Punjab Trust Services for over three decades, became eligible for promotion to Trust Engineer (Horticulture) in 2017. Despite a formal post being created on February 15, 2024—months before his retirement in May 2024—his claim was initially rejected on the grounds that no such post existed. In August 2025, the High Court quashed the rejection and directing the State to consider him for notional promotion “if found suitable”.

The petition before Justice Brar’s Bench has its genesis in a fresh order passed by the State on March 10, rejecting the petitioner’s claim again. Chawla alleged that the respondent used the exact same “non-existence of post” argument that the court had already set aside. Chawla argued the respondent was obligated to implement a judgment passed by the court, once it had attained finality. It could not be circumvented by obtaining the Advocate-General’s opinion.

Clarification on ‘suitability’ in promotion

The Bench also clarified the scope of “suitability” in its earlier ruling by observing: “The term ‘suitable’ is only to mean to the extent that the petitioner fulfils the minimum benchmark in the ACR and is not facing any disciplinary proceedings which could create an embargo on his promotion.” The matter is now listed for further consideration on April 30, when the Administrative Secretary is scheduled to respond under oath.