Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Voluntary Reversion from Promotional Post in PSPCL; Holds No Parity Where Policy Bars Reversion Pending Formulation
Case Name: Gourav Goyal v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others
Date of Judgment: 22 January 2026
Citation: CWP-12770-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions seeking voluntary reversion/demotion from the post of Superintendent Divisional Accounts to Upper Division Clerk (Accounts), holding that in the absence of a governing policy, an employer is justified in declining such requests to preserve administrative efficiency. The Court further held that Article 14 does not sanction negative equality, and earlier instances of reversion granted prior to issuance of restrictive instructions do not confer a right of parity.
Summary: The petitioners were promoted from the post of Upper Division Clerk (Accounts) to Superintendent Divisional Accounts in Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) during October 2023. After promotion, the petitioners sought voluntary reversion to their lower posts citing personal difficulties, including serious medical ailments such as Aortic Stenosis, for which surgeries and prolonged treatment were undertaken.
Their requests were rejected by PSPCL vide orders dated 22.04.2025 and 03.05.2024 on the ground that no policy existed permitting voluntary reversion, and the matter was consigned to record. The petitioners challenged these orders, contending that several similarly situated employees had been allowed to forgo promotion or granted reversion earlier and that denial amounted to discrimination.
PSPCL opposed the petitions by placing reliance on administrative instructions dated 25.05.2025, whereby a conscious policy decision was taken not to allow any voluntary reversion until a comprehensive policy is framed, particularly considering that the post of Superintendent Divisional Accounts is a sensitive, revenue-related post. It was further pointed out that large-scale reversions would seriously disrupt the administrative structure and public interest.
The High Court examined the record and noted that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners, including Jagtar Singh v. PSPCL and Chetan Kumar v. PSPCL, were rendered prior to the issuance of the instructions dated 25.05.2025, and therefore could not be invoked to claim parity. The Court reiterated that Article 14 does not perpetuate illegality or negative equality, relying on authoritative Supreme Court precedents including State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty and Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar.
While declining the substantive relief, the Court took note of the medical condition of petitioner Gourav Goyal and directed PSPCL to consider his request for transfer to Patiala sympathetically, in accordance with law.
Decision: All the writ petitions were dismissed.The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld PSPCL’s decision declining voluntary reversion in the absence of a governing policy. However, PSPCL was directed to consider the request of petitioner Gourav Goyal for transfer on medical grounds within four weeks from receipt of the order.