Laiq Ram Vs State of Hp

Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioner: Mr.C.N. Singh and Mr.Anshul Gandhi, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr.Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

¶11

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

¶12

The petitioner, by way of present petition, has

¶13

prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

¶14

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or directions quashing order 4.1.2014 (Annexure P-12), Dt.10.4.2014 (Annexure P-14) by which petitioner was given promotion to the rank of Officiating Assistant Sub-Inspector (in short ASI) of Police under 10% exempted quota w.e.f 11.12.2009 on notional basis on account of recipient of Police Medal.

¶15

ii) Consequentially Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or directions directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his out off turn promotion to the next higher post of Sub Inspector Police of w.e.f. 2^nd June, 2010 with all consequential benefits.”

¶16

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶17

( 2026:HHC:16315 )

¶18

2

¶19

Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable with the respondents-Department on 22.07.1982 and was promoted to the post of Head Constable in the year 1994.

¶20

The petitioner has pleaded that on 03.08.2007, a telephonic call was received in Police Station, Nahan from Kala Amb Police Post that about 5-6 people were trapped in the Markanda river, which was at its full flow due to heavy rains. On the direction of Shri Chain Ram, Additional SHO, Police Station Nahan, the petitioner rushed along-with the team to the spot, where 7 people were trapped in the flooded river. On reaching the spot, the petitioner saw that thousands of people were standing helplessly on both sides of river Markanda and watching the people, who were standing in the middle of the Markanda river and were crying for help. The petitioner by putting his life in danger, saved seven precious lives, who were trapped in the flooded water. The petitioner was awarded the Hon’ble Prime Minister’s award, as is evident from perusal of certificate dated 14.01.2010 and thereafter the Hon’ble President conferred upon him ‘Jeevan Raksha Padak’ for recognition of his life saving act. The

¶21

( 2026:HHC:16315 )

¶22

3

¶23

petitioner was also issued certificate dated 14.01.2010 (Annexure P-3).

¶24

The respondents-Department with a view to give incentives to Police Personnel, who have exhibited exceptional courage of presence of mind and devotion to duty or high degree of professional competence, gave one rank out of turn promotion to the awardees of police medals. Since the petitioner had also shown courage by putting his life in trouble, made representation to the respondents-Department, however, his request came to be turned down vide order dated 20.03.2014 on the ground that the Department has examined his claim as per standing orders dated 31.12.2013 and 05.02.2014 and found that since the petitioner has been awarded two medals for the same incident and further he has been awarded one rank out of turn promotion once, the representation made by him being devoid of merit is rejected.

¶25

It has been averred in the petition that the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police on 23.05.2010, but the very purpose of awarding the one rank out of turn promotion is not sufficient and the petitioner should have been considered for the next higher rank of the post of Sub Inspector of Police, to which, the case of the

¶26

( 2026:HHC:16315 )

¶27

4

¶28

petitioner was required to be considered. The petitioner was promoted in routine manner to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector w.e.f. 23.05.2010 and in terms of order(s) dated 04.01.2014 and 10.04.2014, he had been given promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector on notional basis w.e.f. 11.12.2009, to which he stands already promoted. It has been averred that the respondents-Department had given out of turn promotions to the Police Personnel’s, who were Constables to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector and thus similar treatment be given to him, thereby promoted to the next higher post of Sub Inspector.

¶29

The respondents filed reply to the petition and supported its decision. It has been averred that the petitioner, who was awarded the Prime Minister’s Life Saving Medal on 11.12.2009 and was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector w.e.f. 11.12.2009, on notional basis. The earlier standing orders issued in the year 2007 were withdrawn and as per standing order dated 31.12.2013, which provided that out of turn promotion will be made only to those personnels, who are recipients of President’s Police Medal for Gallantry, Police Medal for Gallantry, President’s Police Medal for Distinguished Service, Police Medical for Meritorious Services

¶30

( 2026:HHC:16315 )

¶31

5

¶32

and Prime Minister’s Police Medal for Life Saving. It has been averred that as per applicable orders, the petitioner has been promoted from the date when he was awarded the Prime Minister’s Life Saving Medal on 11.12.2009.

¶33

The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and controverted the facts in the reply.

¶34

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General. The record of the case has also been carefully perused.

¶35

It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner had shown exemplary courage to save the lives of seven people, who were stranded in the river. It is also not in dispute that the earlier standing order No.4 of 2007 (Annexure P-7), was subsequently withdrawn by the respondents vide order dated 18.03.2009 (Annexure P-8). The respondents have issued the standing order dated 31.12.2013 (Annexure R-1), wherein it was clearly mentioned that those police officials, who have been awarded the police medals, as mentioned above, shall be governed by the said order and further the promotion under those provisions will be made retrospectively. In the present case, no doubt, the petitioner was already promoted to the post of Assistant Sub

¶36

( 2026:HHC:16315 )

¶37

6

¶38

Inspector w.e.f. 23.05.2010, but as per the ibid standing order dated 31.12.2013, he was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police on notional basis w.e.f. 11.12.2009. No doubt, the petitioner was already promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector, but at the same time, once the respondents had taken a decision to make promotions under these orders retrospectively, the petitioner could not have been promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector only from the date when he was recipient of the said medal given by the competent authority. The petitioner was awarded the Prime Minister’s Life Saving Medal on 11.12.2009 and the respondents have promoted him to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector w.e.f. 11.12.2009 on notional basis. 10. The claim put-forth by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was already promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector, his claim for further promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police should have been considered, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the respondents as per the standing orders had make promotion retrospectively taking the date of award of medal and in the case of the petitioner, he was promoted w.e.f. 11.12.2009 and he could not have been promoted earlier to

¶39

( 2026:HHC:16315 )

¶40

7

¶41

the date when he has been awarded the said police medal. The claim of the petitioner for further promotion to the post of Sub Inspector could not have been countenanced in view of the standing orders since the standing orders do not provide that the persons who have already been promoted to the post will be considered for further promotion on the basis of the police medals received by them.

¶42

The petitioner has been awarded police medal on 11.12.2009 and nothing wrong can be said with the decision taken by the respondents when the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector w.e.f. 11.12.2009 on notional basis, when the other persons who had also been in receipt of police medals, have been promoted from the date of receipt of the medals by them.

¶43

Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶44

( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 11^th May, 2026 Judge (naveen)

Laiq Ram v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laiq Ram v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Singh and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Chet Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

Krishan Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Raju Vs Dr. Y.S. Parmar University

Renuka Sharma Vs State of Hp

Krishan Vs State of Hp