High court raps Punjab over ‘unbecoming’ conduct on employee promotions

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reprimanded the state of Punjab for its “unbecoming” and inconsistent conduct in reverting employees promoted years ago — some even after their retirement — on the strength of diplomas later declared invalid.

“When a public employer acts on a whim and causes implicit mental agony, harassment and loss of reputation to its employee, it betrays the constitutional promise of fairness, which is impermissible with capriciousness and fair play being antithetical to each other,” Justice Harpreet Singh Brar before directing the creation of supernumerary posts for the affected employees.

“The conduct of the respondents is unbecoming of a public employer. In the present case, the respondents have taken inconsistent stands at different stages, thereby blowing hot and cold in their approach towards the petitioners,” Justice Brar observed.

The court added that the petitioners were promoted earlier on the strength of disputed diplomas. Years later – even after their retirement — they were now sought to be reverted. “Such actions cause grave mental agony, harassment and loss of reputation.”

The bench was hearing petitions by employees of Water Resources Department, who had served between 25 and 30 years. They had obtained diplomas in civil and electrical engineering through deemed universities between 2011 and 2014 after obtaining permission from the department.

Initially promoted to the post of Junior Engineer in 2019, they were later reverted through an order dated October 4, 2024, relying on an AICTE clarification that it did not recognise diploma courses in engineering conducted through open and distance learning. The petitioners, among others, were represented by senior advocates DS Patwalia and Rajiv Atma Ram, along with counsel Gauravjit Singh Patwalia and Brijesh Khosla.

Justice Brar added that the State and its instrumentalities – being model employers – were “held up to higher standards and therefore bear an additional responsibility to ensure that their actions are fair and confer to the constitutional philosophy”.

Referring to the constitutional dimensions of fairness, the bench observed that Article 14 struck at the heart of arbitrary State action and demanded that “exercise of any public power be only guided by reason and equality”. Article 21, meanwhile, safeguarded the right to livelihood, which “certainly includes just and non-capricious treatment.”

Justice Brar added: “This court is conscious of the fact that some of the petitioners have served on the promotional posts for a considerable number of years; some have already retired, while others continue to serve on such posts under the protection of interim orders of this court. To revert them now and seek recovery of the financial benefits availed would be unduly harsh and unreasonable, particularly when the question whether they are at fault remains debatable.”

Justice Brar added that the respondents could not simply wash their hands of the matter, as they were equally at fault for creating a skewed situation leading to grave uncertainty. The blame could not be shifted solely on the petitioners in this regard.”

To remedy the injustice, the court directed the state to create supernumerary posts for three categories of petitioners who were promoted on the strength of their disputed diplomas – those who served on the promotional posts for a considerable number of years and had now been reverted; those still serving on such posts under the protection of court’s interim; and ones already retired from the promotional posts but sought to be reverted post-retirement.

“The employees shall be placed in a separate dying cadre, below the employees possessing valid qualifications,” the court ordered. “It is, however, clarified that this direction shall not extend to employees seeking fresh promotion or any other additional service benefits on the basis of such diplomas.”