Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sudarshan Kumar Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 February, 2026
Author: Anupinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
118 LPA-3255-2025 (O&M).
Date of Decision: 03.02.2026.
Sudarshan Kumar Sharma ....Appellant.
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents.
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
---
Present: Mr. Arjun Pratap Atma Ram, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, Assistant Advocate General,
Punjab.
****
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)
CM-8072-LPA-2025 Exemption application is allowed, as prayed for. CM-8073-LPA-2025 Application is allowed and additional documents Annexures A-1 to A-10 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Appeal The appellant has challenged the judgment of the Single Bench dated 29.08.2025, whereby the writ petition preferred by him seeking retiral benefits attached to the post of Registrar (Births & Deaths), has been dismissed.
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 06:09:35 :::
LPA-3255-2025 (O&M) -2-
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the appellant had been discharging the functions of Registrar (Births & Deaths) for a considerable period of time till his superannuation, he ought to have been granted the retiral dues of that post. He has referred to the communication dated 18.07.2018 from the Local Government Department, Punjab Government, to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, that the benefits attached to the post of Registrar (Births & Deaths) be accorded to the appellant.
3. Heard.
4. The appellant is stated to have joined service as Sanitary Inspector in 1974 and had been working as Superintendent (Vaccination) when he was appointed as Registrar (Births & Deaths) in 1997. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.08.1998, his appointment was withdrawn, which was impugned by the appellant by preferring CWP No.14622 of 1998. Vide order dated 31.07.1999, a Co-ordinate bench of this Court allowed the writ petition and held that the order withdrawing his appointment was illegal inasmuch as it was non-speaking and no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to him. In 2003, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant to which he filed his reply. Vide order dated 17.12.2004, he was reverted to the post of Superintendent (Vaccination). Aggrieved thereagainst, he preferred CWP No.837 of 2005 and this Court, vide order dated 14.01.2005 had stayed his reversion. The appellant had continued to work as Registrar (Births & Deaths) till his superannuation on 31.12.2009. The writ petition was disposed of on 21.02.2013 with the direction that as the appellant had continued to work as Registrar (Births & Deaths) and had even retired from that post, retiral 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 06:09:35 ::: LPA-3255-2025 (O&M) -3- benefits be released to him as if he had retired as Registrar (Births & Deaths). When the orders of the Court were not complied with, a contempt petition was preferred which was ultimately withdrawn and liberty was granted to pursue the alternative remedy. Thereafter, the appellant preferred writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to release the retiral benefits as detailed in the chart (Annexure P-13). During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent No.2 rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that he was holding only additional charge of the post of Registrar (Births & Deaths) and was not entitled to any further benefit. The writ petition thereagainst was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
5. We have perused the material on record and the judgment of the Single Bench. The appellant was working as Superintendent (Vaccination) with the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, when vide orders dated 21.03.1997/28.05.1997, the Commissioner invoking provisions of Section 320(2) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 appointed him as Registrar (Births & Deaths). It is little difficult to comprehend how the appellant was appointed so, especially when Sections 320 to 322 of the aforesaid Act stood omitted almost two decades ago vide Notification dated 22.05.1979. Perhaps to correct this error, vide Notification dated 26/27.06.1997, the State Government invoking Section 7(1) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, appointed the appellant to the post of Registrar (Births & Deaths).
6. It is evident that no qualification had been prescribed for appointment or promotion to the post of Registrar (Births & Deaths) in the Act of 1969. The proviso to Section 7(1) clearly stipulates that the State 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 06:09:35 ::: LPA-3255-2025 (O&M) -4- Government may appoint any officer or employee of a municipality/local authority/panchayat as a Registrar. We, are therefore, in agreement with the Single Bench that in 1997 the appointment of the appellant to the said post was only as a stop-gap arrangement to ensure the smooth functioning of the department.
7. It is also not in dispute that no independent pay scale for the post of Registrar (Births & Deaths) has been stipulated in the Act of 1969 or the rules thereto. No separate pay scale has also been mentioned in the Act of 1976 or in the Punjab Municipal Corporation Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1978 or in the orders appointing him to that post. Admittedly, the appellant had continued to draw the salary in the pay scale of Superintendent Grade-II while he was working as Registrar (Births & Deaths). He was only handed over the additional charge and the appellant accepted his appointment without any demure.
8. The Co-ordinate bench of this court in its order dated 21.02.2013 had directed that the appellant be granted retiral benefits as if he had retired from the post of Registrar (Births & Deaths). The appellant while discharging the duties of Registrar (Births & Deaths) was drawing salary in the pay scale of Superintendent Grade-II and had therefore, been rightly given the retiral benefits of the post of Superintendent Grade-II. Mere communication (Annexure P-27) from the Local Government Department, Punjab Government to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, would not help the case of the appellant as for creation of a post, sanction of the Finance Department is required and an order has to be passed in that regard.
9. Consequently, we do not find any manifest illegality in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. The Letters Patent 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 06:09:35 ::: LPA-3255-2025 (O&M) -5- Appeal being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 03.02.2026 jitender Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/ No Whether Reportable : Yes/ No 5 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 06:09:35 :::