Allowed

Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Feb 2011CWP/18673/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition challenging an order that altered the petitioner’s seniority dates in the police force. It set aside the impugned order, restored the original promotion and confirmation dates, and directed notional fixation for pension benefits given the petitioner had retired.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; confirmation and promotion dates restored; notional fixation of pay granted for pensionary benefits.

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Haryana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CWP No. 18673 of 1998

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 18673 of 1998 Date of decision:- 02.02.2011

¶5

Sukhdev Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nuh, District Gurgaon.

¶6

......Petitioner

¶7

¶8

State of Haryana and another.

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶11

Present: Mr. Deepak Thapar, Advocate, with Mr. C.L. Katyal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents.

¶13

¶14

RANJAN GOGOI, A.C.J. (ORAL)

¶15

The challenge in this writ petition is against the order dated 31.08.1998 (Annexure P12) by which the dates of promotion of the petitioner, Sukhdev Singh, in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police, Inspector of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police have been reversed.

¶16

The facts, indeed, are long but an attempt must be made to summarize and recite only what would be strictly relevant for the purpose of the present adjudication.

¶17

The petitioner joined service as an Assistant Sub Inspector

¶18

CWP No. 18673 of 1998

¶19

¶20

on 30.03.1971. He remained on probation for a period of three years which was extended by a further period of three months. He was confirmed in the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector on 30.06.1974. In October, 1974, one vacancy in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police arose and a person (Rajinder Parkash) who joined as an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police after the petitioner was brought on the 'E' list (for promotion to Sub Inspector) on 01.11.1974 and promoted on 02.11.1974. On the other hand, the petitioner who was senior, was offered officiating promotion in the post of Sub Inspector on 09.07.1976 which was withdrawn in the month of August, 1976. He was again promoted by an order dated 05.10.1976. The petitioner was confirmed as a Sub Inspector of Police (Gurgaon Range) on 10.05.1980. On 10.01.1984, he was brought on list 'F' for promotion to the post of Inspector and he was promoted to the said post on 10.02.1984.

¶21

It appears that the petitioner had submitted a representation against what he claimed to be his belated promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector. The said representation came to be decided on 28.07.1989 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala, granting the reliefs sought for. The promotion of the petitioner to the rank of Sub Inspector, consequently stood ante-dated to 02.11.1974. By another order dated 12.06.1990 (Annexure P2) the petitioner, on due computation of his revised seniority, was deemed to have been brought on the 'F' list for promotion to the rank of Inspector w.e.f. 25.03.1980. Thereafter, acting on the representation filed by the petitioner for grant

¶22

CWP No. 18673 of 1998

¶23

¶24

of benefit as a Scheduled Caste candidate, the promotion of the petitioner as officiating Inspector of Police was ante-dated to 08.12.1980.

¶25

The above dates were reiterated and confirmed by an order dated 13.08.1991 (Annexure P6). The petitioner, in the meantime, was brought on the 'G' list for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on 01.01.1990 and was promoted to the said post on 10.01.1990. Subsequently, by an order dated 28.02.1992 (Annexure P7) the date of the petitioner's entry in the 'G' list was antedated to 28.04.1988 and his promotion as a Deputy Superintendent of Police was ante-dated to 16.05.1988. The aforesaid action was also approved by the Haryana Public Service Commission by its letter dated 12.06.1998 (Annexure P8). Two more events will require specific notice of the Court. By an order dated 25.10.1996 (Annexure P9) the petitioner was confirmed in the rank of Sub Inspector of Police w.e.f. 18.08.1978 and on that basis by order dated 31.10.1996 (Annexure P10) the petitioner stood confirmed in the rank of Inspector w.e.f. 06.04.1980.

¶26

The above position having been reversed by the impugned order dated 31.08.1998 (Annexure P12) and the dates of confirmation of the petitioner as Sub Inspector and Inspector having been altered to his prejudice which also had the effect of altering the date of promotion of the petitioner to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, the writ petition in question was filed challenging the aforesaid order dated 31.08.1998 by which the impugned changes were made.

¶27

CWP No. 18673 of 1998

¶28

¶29

The only question which would require the attention of the Court in the present writ petition is whether the reasons recorded in the impugned order dated 31.08.1998 for the reversal of dates in question can be held to be valid. Reading the relevant part of the impugned order dated 31.08.1998 which pertains to the petitioner, it appears that the order dated 28.07.1989 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range (Annexure P1) was understood to be the basis for the consequential changes of the date of promotion of the petitioner to the different higher ranks in service. Examining the said order dated 28.07.1989 first of all it was recorded that the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala was not justified in passing the order for the alteration of date of promotion of the petitioner to the rank of Sub Inspector after a lapse of nearly 15 years. Secondly, it was found that the service conditions including seniority, confirmation and promotion of Assistant Sub Inspectors and Sub Inspectors are to be borne on the respective ranges in which such officers are posted. In this regard it has been held that the case of Rajinder Parkash on the basis of whose earlier promotion relief was granted to the petitioner, belonged to the Patiala Range whereas the petitioner belongs to the Gurgaon Range. Inbuilt in the said finding is the further conclusion that the earlier promotion of Rajinder Parkash is to be seen in the light of availability of the vacancies in the Patiala Range and such earlier promotion was not at all relevant for consideration of the entitlement of an incumbent in another Range i.e. Gurgaon Range where the petitioner was serving.

¶30

Learned Additional Advocate General does not dispute that

¶31

CWP No. 18673 of 1998

¶32

¶33

the conclusion drawn on the basis that the Patiala and Gurgaon Ranges are different would not be sound in as much as Rajinder Parkash was earlier serving in the Patiala Range but had opted to serve in the State of Haryana after it came into being w.e.f. 01.01.1966 and, in fact, he was allotted the Ambala Range. The argument of learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, however, centres around the jurisdiction of the Deputy Inspector General of Police to re-open the matter after a lapse of 15 years and furthermore that such reopening was without notice or opportunity to the affected parties.

¶34

According to us once the issue of Rajinder Parkash belonging to Ambala Range in the State of Haryana has been resolved in the manner indicated above, the contentions of the learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana must necessarily pale into insignificance. The order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala granting benefit to the petitioner is dated 28.07.1989. There was no challenge to the said order at any point of time on any ground. That apart, if some benefit had been granted by the said order which today has to be moulded by the Court as the petitioner has since retired, the delay in the grant of benefit to the petitioner by the order dated 28.07.1989 should not be held to be an obstacle in determining the entitlement of the petitioner. In so far as the absence of notice to the affected persons, as urged by the learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana is concerned, we are of the view that the said issue would again be self answered by what has been observed by us in the context of the moulded relief that the petitioner

¶35

CWP No. 18673 of 1998

¶36

¶37

would be entitled to, if at all. That apart, no person affected by the said order has questioned the same on the ground urged by the learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

¶38

The discussion above leads us to the conclusion that in the facts of the present case the impugned order dated 31.08.1998 (Annexure P12), in so far as the petitioner is concerned, should not be allowed to remain on record. The said order, therefore, is set aside in so far as the petitioner is concerned and the dates with regard to the confirmation of the petitioner in the post of Sub Inspector (18.08.1978) and Inspector (06.04.1980) and the date of promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (16.05.1988) are restored. The petitioner having retired from service in 2009, the benefit granted will have to be notional alongwith notional fixation of pay with reference to the dates mentioned above. Such notional fixation of pay, it is made clear, will be only for the purpose of pensionary and other retiral benefits.

¶39

Consequently and in the light of the foregoing discussion,

¶40

the writ petition is allowed to the extent and in the terms indicated above.

¶41

(RANJAN GOGOI)

¶42

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶43

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE

¶44

02.02.2011 Amodh

Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narinder Singh Vs Kamla and Ors.

Narinder Singh Vs Kamla and Ors.

Narinder Singh Vs Kamla and Ors.

Karamjit Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Meghna Sharma Vs K.U.K and Ors.

Joint Action Committee Retrenched Employees. Hry Vs State of Haryana .