Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohit Bassi vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ... on 13 January, 2026
1
CWP-8384--2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
239 CWP
CWP-8384-2025
Date of Decision: January 13, 2026
Mohit Bassi
....Petitioner
VERSUS
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) and others
...Respondents
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present : Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta,, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shikhar Sarin,, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
BRAR J. (Oral)
1. 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 certiorari for quashing the impugned Memo No. 1249 dated 11.02.2025 (Annexure P-19)
19) issued by respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner's request for withdrawal of his resignation and reinstatement as Clerk has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) on 28.01.2021. He applied for the post of Sub Sub-Inspector Inspector in Punjab Police through proper channels after obtaining a No Objection Certificate 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 19-01-2026 21:37:46 ::: 2 CWP-8384--2025 (NOC) from PSPCL. Upon selection, he submitted a technical resignation on 13.05.2024, 024, which was accepted w.e.f. 14.08.2024. He joined Punjab Police on 17.08.2024, but on 20.08.2024, he applied for withdrawal of his resignation and sought to rejoin PSPCL. He was relieved from Punjab Police on 21.08.2024. Despite repeated representations representations,, his request was rejected vide the impugned memo. He contends that the case is governed by Regulation 7.5(4) of the PSEB Main Services Regulations, 1972, and not by Rule 7.5(5) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, which has been wrongly applied. He relies upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Kamlesh Rani Bhatla CIVIL APPEAL No 1927 of 2023 and L.R. Patil vs. Gulbarga University 2023 INSC 796.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent respondent-PSPCL PSPCL submits that the petitioner's petitioner's resignation was tendered to join Punjab Police, which is a State Government department, and thus squarely falls under the embargo of Regulation 7.5(5) of the PSEB Main Services Regulations, 1972, which prohibits withdrawal of resignation when an employee resigns to take up appointment under a "body controlled or financed by the Government." He contends that the petitioner's conduct amounts to approbation and reprobation and cannot be permitted. He further submits that the reference to PCS Rules in the impugned memo is inconsequential as the provisions are pari materia.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 19-01-2026 21:37:47 ::: 3 CWP-8384--2025
5. The core issue is whether the petitioner's case falls under Regulation 7.5(4) or Regulation 7.5(5) of the PSEB Main Services Regulations, 1972, which reads as under:
"7.5. (1) Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service.
(2) A resignation shall not not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies for pension. (3) Interruption in service in a case falling under sub-rule rule (2), due to the two appointments being at different stations, not exceeding the joining time permissible under the rules of transfer, shall be covered by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government employee on the date of relief or by formal formal condonation to the extent to which the period is not covered by leave due to him. (4) The appointing authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in public interest on the following conditions, namely:
namely:-
(i) that the resignation was tendered by the Government employee for some compelling reasons which did not involve any reflection on his integrity, efficiency or conduct and the request for withdrawal of the resignation has been made as a result of a mater material ial change in the circumstances which originally compelled him to tender the resignation;
(ii) that during the period intervening between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date from which the request for withdrawal was made, the conduct conduct of the person concerned was in no way improper;
(iii) that the period of absence from duty between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date on which the person is allowed to resume duty as a result of permission to withdraw tthe he resignation is not more than ninety days;
(iv) that the aforementioned period of ninety days shall be observed in the manner that the employee concerned should put in his application for withdrawal of resignation within two months of being relieved and the same should as far as possible be processed within a period of one month; and (v) that the post, which was vacated by the Government 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 19-01-2026 21:37:47 ::: 4 CWP-8384--2025 employee on the acceptance of his resignation or any other comparable post, is available.
(5) Request for withdrawal ofof a resignation shall not be accepted by the appointing authority where a Government employee resigns his service or post with a view to taking up an appointment in or under a private commercial company or in or under a corporation or company wholly or substantially substantially owned or controlled by the Government or in or under a body controlled or financed by the Government."
6. The respondent has rejected the petitioner's request relying on the embargo under Rule 7.5(5) of PCS Rules, which is similarly worded but applicable to government servants. The petitioner, however, is an employee of PSPCL, a statutory corporation, and is governed by its own Service Regulations. The impugned memo, while quoting PCS Rules, reflects a fundamental legal error in applying the wrong wrong set of rules.
7. Even assuming the provisions are pari materia, a closer reading of Regulation 7.5(5) shows it applies to resignation for joining:
- a private commercial company, or
- a corporation/company owned/controlled by Government, or
- a body controlled/financed by Government.
8. Punjab Police is not a "corporation," "company," or "body" as understood in commercial or statutory terms; it is a sovereign department of the State Government engaged in core sovereign functions. The lang language uage of Regulation 7.5(5) does not expressly cover resignation to join another government department. Thus, the embargo does not apply.
4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 19-01-2026 21:37:47 ::: 5 CWP-8384--2025
9. A Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in L.R Patil Vs Gulbarga University, Gulbarga, 2023 INSC 796 while speaking peaking through Justice J.K Maheshwari, observed that, "16. On the said issue, the law has been well well-settled settled by this Court in the case of "Ramlal Khurana (dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Punjab & Others, (1989) 4 SCC 99", wherein this Court observed that 'lien'lien'' is not a word of art and it connotes the right of a civil servant to hold the post substantively to which he is appointed, meaning thereby, the appointment of government servant on the said post must be substantive as he/she cannot hold two posts simulta simultaneously neously in two different cadres and maintain lien on both of them at the same time. Further, in the case of "Triveni Shankar Saxena Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 524", while primarily dealing the question of acquisition of lien, this Cour Court has observed that a person can be said to acquire a lien on a post only when he has been confirmed and made permanent on that post and not earlier.
17. In a 3-Judge 3 Judge Bench judgment in the case of "State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. S.N. Tiwari and Others, (2009) 4 SCC 700", while interpreting the word 'lien' against the post appointed substantively with respect to another post, this Court held as thus:
"17. It is very well settled that when a person with a lien against the post is appointed substan substantively tively to another post, only then he acquires a lien against the latter post. Then and then alone the lien against the previous post disappears. Lien connotes the right of a civil servant to hold the post 12substantively to which he is appointed. The lien of a government employee over the previous post ends if he is appointed to another permanent post on permanent basis. In such a case the lien of the employee shifts to the new permanent post. It may not require a formal termination of lien over the previous permanent post.""
5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 19-01-2026 21:37:47 ::: 6 CWP-8384--2025
10. In the present case, the petitioner was on probation in Punjab Police and was never confirmed. His lien on the post of Clerk, therefore, could not be deemed terminated. Further he applied for withdrawal within six days of his resignation resignation becoming effective, his conduct was not improper, the post of Clerk was vacant, and he resigned for a compelling reason (higher appointment). These factors satisfy the conditions of Regulation 7.5(4). The rejection based on a misapplied legal pro provision vision is unsustainable.
11. Moreover, the impugned memo violates principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was granted. The respondent's action is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Indi
12. It transpires that the petitioner having resigned and joined another service, is entitled to have his claim for reinstatement considered in accordance with the applicable Punjab Civil Services Rules. Reliance in this regard may be placed on a judgement rendered rendered by this court in Amandeep .
Singh v State of Punjab CWP-25469-2025.
CWP
13. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned Memo dated 11.02.2025 (Annexure P P-19)
19) is hereby set aside.
The respondents-Corporation respondents Corporation is directed to cconsider onsider the claim of the petitioner and pass a speaking order strictly in terms of Rule 7.5 of the PSEB Main Services Regulations, 1972 and the judgment of this Court passed in Amandeep (supra), after affording him an opportunity to be heard, within a 6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 19-01-2026 21:37:47 ::: 7 CWP-8384--2025 period od 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 forthwith by the respondents respondents- Corporation.
14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE January 13, 13 2026 P.C Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No 7 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 19-01-2026 21:37:47 :::