Disposed

Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jan 2013CWP/9977/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of multiple writ petitions concerning discriminatory promotions and seniority claims in the Punjab Police sports category instead of adjudicating merits directly. A committee comprising IPS officers and the Additional Advocate General was constituted to examine claims, ensure fairness, and submit binding recommendations to the State Government.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to constitute an Officers' Committee to examine claims and submit binding recommendations; retirals to continue drawing benefits.

Harjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

��

��

�� 

CWP No.9977 of 1994 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.01.2013 ****

¶6

Harjinder Singh

¶7

. . . . Petitioner(s)

¶8

VS.

¶9

State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents

��

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

¶16

Present: Mr. SS Mattewal, Advocate for the petitioner(s)

¶17

[in CWP Nos.9977, 10006, 18460 of 1994]

¶18

Mr. KG Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner(s) [in CWP Nos.14965, 15318 of 1995; 222 of 1996; 5155, 7995 of 1999; 13926 of 2000; 3568, 18570, 19314 of 2001; 16128 of 2010]

¶19

Mr. RK Sharma, Advocate for the respondent(s) [in CWP Nos.2887, 19557 of 1998; 7995, 13264 of 1999; 6485, 19314 of 2001]

¶20

Dr. Puneet Sekhon, Addl. AG Punjab [in CWP Nos.9446 of 1992; 2887 of 1994; 14965, 15318 of 1995; 222 of 1996, 19557 of 1998; 5155, 7995, 13264, 17742 of 1999; 13926 of 2000; 1237, 3568, 6485, 18570, 19314 of 2001; 16128 of 2010;

¶21

¶22

��

¶23

(1). This order shall dispose of CWP No.9446 of 1992; 2887, 9977, 10006, 18460 of 1994; 15318, 14965 of 1995; 222 of 1996; 19557 of 1998; 5155, 7995, 17742, 13264 of 1999; 13926 of 2000; 1237, 3568, 6485, 18570, 19314 of 2001; 16128 of 2010 which have been ordered to

¶24

be heard together for the reason that one or the other issues raised in

¶25

��

¶26

��

¶27

these writ petitions are of similar nature. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No.9977 of 1994.

¶28

(2). The petitioner is aggrieved by and seeks quashing of the order dated 04.03.1994 (Annexure P5) issued by the Inspector General of Police, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt. intimating him that the Director General of Police, Punjab vide his order dated 31.12.1993 has rejected the petitioner’s representation. It may be mentioned here that petitioner had represented to grant him seniority as Head Constable w.e.f. 01.08.1983 at par with private respondents Nos.6 to 8.

¶29

(3). The petitioner had joined as Constable on 12.12.1980 on the basis of his outstanding achievements in the field of Sports. The petitioner was promoted as Head Constable on ad hoc basis on 06.09.1984 and was thereafter deputed to undergo Lower School Course of six months’ duration at Police Training College, Phillaur which he is said to have passed in March, 1990. He was thereafter promoted on regular basis as officiating Head Constable on 08.11.1990.

¶30

(4). The petitioner claims to have participated in various Athletic meets at National level and in All-India Police Games securing one or the other position/medals, the details whereof are given in para 4 of the petition. Relying upon a policy circular dated 30.04.1992 (Annexure P3) whereby a Committee of senior police officers was constituted to consider the claim of outstanding sports persons for promotions, the petitioner also made representation

¶31

��

¶32

��

¶33

(Annexure P4) inter alia pointing out that the private respondents No.6 to 8 who were appointed as Constables on 01.09.1981, 28.09.1982 & 01.12.1980 and were junior to him as Constables, had been given out-of-turn promotion as Head Constables in the Sports Category as they were Hockey players but the petitioner was discriminated and denied such promotion though his achievements as an athlete at the National Level in the All-India Police Games were in no manner less than the achievements of private respondents. The aforesaid representation having been rejected without assigning any reason vide the impugned order (Annexure P5) that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction that he should be considered for his retrospective promotion as Head Constable with effect from the date when private respondents were promoted.

¶34

(5). In the connected cases also, the petitioners have broadly sought directions for favourable determination of their seniority and consequential promotion(s). (6). The grievance of the petitioner(s) against indiscriminate out-of-turn promotions and that too by granting exemption from passing the requisite promotion courses undoubtedly merits consideration and if such out-of-turn promotions have affected the petitioner’s promotional avenues, such of his grievance needs to be suitably redressed. However, instead of expressing any final view in relation to the claim(s) raised in writ petitions, I deem it appropriate to refer the petitioner’s claim to the Officers’ Committee comprising

¶35

��

¶36

��

¶37

two senior police officers of the Department as well as one Additional Advocate General, Punjab as was constituted by this Court vide order dated 04.03.2010 passed in CWP No.566 of 2010 (Ranjit Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.) , the operative part whereof reads as follows:-

¶38

In view of the above-stated stand taken by the parties and the issues raised, without going into the merits of the controversies at this stage, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶39

[i] there shall be an Officers-Committee comprising [i] Shri Parag Jain, IPS, IGP/Head Quarters, Punjab Police; [ii] Smt. Gurpreet Kaur Deo, IPS, DIG, Administration, Punjab Police Headquarters; and [iii] Shri MS Gill, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, attached with the DGP, Punjab who shall consider the claims of the petitioners and other police personnel who are likely to be affected;

¶40

[ii] the Committee shall hear the petitioners and all other police personnel who are likely to be affected by the recommendations that may be made by it. The Committee, after examining the rival claims in the light of the Act, Rules, Government Policy, equitable considerations, fair and just principles, shall submit

¶41

��

¶42

��

¶43

its recommendations to the Director General of Police, Punjab/State Government, as early as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received;

¶44

[iii] the petitioners and other noticees shall be at liberty to submit additional documents and/or plea[s] as may be required;

¶45

[iv] the Committee shall submit its

¶46

recommendations duly support with reasons;

¶47

[v] the recommendations of the Committee shall ordinarily be accepted by the Director General of Police/State Government, as the case may be, unless there are strong and cogent reasons to be recorded in writing;

¶48

[vi] if the petitioners are aggrieved at the Committee’s report/recommendations, they shall be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law;

¶49

[vii] till the officers-committee resolves the issues, the allocation to different cadres, promotions and/or any other incidental service events shall be subject to the Committee’s report and the final decision to be taken thereupon by the competent authority.

¶50

(7). The composition of the Committee was slightly modified by this Court vide order dated 10.08.2011 passed in CWP No.7075 of

¶51

��

¶52

��

¶53

2011 (Sub Inspector Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs. State of Punjab

¶54

& Ors.) . Needless to say that some of the petitioners/private respondents have retired from service during the pendency of these writ petitions. It would be illogical to pass any order adverse to the interest of those who have since retired, therefore, they shall continue to draw whatever benefits were granted to them. However, the writ petitioners who are found to have been discriminated or denied similar benefit(s), the Officers’ Committee shall make suitable recommendations for the redressal of their grievances within the time frame already fixed by this Court in Ranjit Singh’ case. The recommendations of the Committee shall be binding on the State Government in the manner as was directed in Ranjit Singh’s case. The petitioners as well as private respondents, if so advised, shall be at liberty to supplement their claims before the Committee within a period of two weeks’ from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and such supplemental claims shall also be adjudicated by the Officers’ Committee in the same manner as the main case.

¶55

(8). The consequential benefit(s), to which the petitioner(s) may be found entitled to, shall be granted/released in their favour within a period of three months from the date their claim is accepted.

¶56

(9). With these directions, the writ petition(s) are disposed of.

¶57

(10). Dasti .

¶58

�� 

¶59

!"#$%&�#$'()%*�

Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhirinder Chopra Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S Uni-Com India Sales Private Limited Vs M/S Uni-Com India Private Ltd.

Jagdish Vs State of Haryana

Rajpal Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sukhwinder Singh Inspector NO.J/134 Vs State of Punjab and Others

Chand Ram Vs St of Pb