Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Claim for Seniority and Promotion; Holds Appellant Ineligible Due to Delay in Passing Punjabi Language Exam
Case Name: Tripta Kumari v. State of Punjab & Others
Date of Judgment: October 31, 2025
Citation: RSA-808-2018
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a regular second appeal filed by a retired employee of the Punjab Irrigation Department seeking seniority, promotion, and step-up increments at par with her juniors, holding that she was ineligible for such benefits as she had not passed the mandatory Punjabi language examination at the time of initial appointment. Justice Sudeepti Sharma observed that the appellant could not claim parity with juniors who were duly qualified and that both the trial and appellate courts had rightly dismissed her claim based on factual and legal findings.
Summary: The appellant was appointed as a Clerk on 15.02.1972 on an ad hoc basis and regularized later in the Irrigation Department. Her grievance arose from not being granted the Junior Assistant scale, senior scale, and proficiency increments (8-, 18-, and 24-year ACPs) which were extended to her juniors, Harbhajan Singh and Raj Kumari, who were promoted in 1987 and 1988 respectively. Both the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, and the District Judge, Amritsar, had dismissed her claim on grounds of ineligibility and lack of qualification at the relevant time.
Justice Sharma noted that as per the Punjab Government’s 1971 instructions, passing the Punjabi language examination at matriculation level was mandatory for government employment and promotion. The appellant had only cleared this examination on 27.07.1986—14 years after her appointment. Since she did not possess the required qualification earlier, she could not claim retrospective seniority or parity with her juniors who were eligible and promoted lawfully. The Court also found that the appellant had failed to implead those juniors as parties to her suit, making her claim further untenable.
Decision: The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, affirming that the appellant was not entitled to any seniority correction, promotion, or step-up increments. The second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.