AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s detailed representation dated 16.07.2026 (Annexure P-9) and reminder-I dated 24.07.2026 (Annexure P-10) raising the grievance regarding the alleged wrongful application of the provisions/instructions relating to current duty charge to the additional duties assigned to and performed by the petitioner and the consequent non-issuance of experience certificates by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a time bound period.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor on 31.12.2013 (Annexure P-1). He was repeatedly assigned additional administrative and statutory responsibilities including Head of Department, SPIO, Member, Purchase Committee and Nodal Officer. He further submits that when the petitioner applied for experience certificates in respect of these assignments on 19.12.2023 and 13.08.2025, for the purpose of applying for regular professorship under the Government of Punjab, the authorities declined his request on 20.08.2025, taking an untenable stand that the instructions governing current duty charge barred issuance of such certification. He served a legal notice dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure P-8) and submitted a detailed representation dated 16.07.2026 (Annexure P-9) pointing out that Clause 15 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016 governs current duty charge for substantive promotional posts, whereas, his request was strictly limited to factual certification of the assigned nodal/committee duties without seeking any promotional, seniority or financial benefits.
He further submits that he would be satisfied if the representation (Annexure P-9) of the petitioner is decided by respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner.
Learned State counsel, appearing on advanced notice, submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to respondent No.2 for time-bound consideration and decision of the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order.
Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation (Annexure P-9) of the petitioner and pass a speaking order, after affording him an opportunity to be heard, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.2.
Disposed of, accordingly.