Rajender Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Sept 2025CWP/19416/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP-19416-2002 (O&M); Punjab & Haryana High Court; decided 02.09.2025 by Jagmohan Bansal, J.; compulsory retirement; premature/compulsory retirement under Rule 9.18(2) Punjab Police Rules 1934 (Haryana); average ACRs; censure; stoppage of annual increment; habitual absentee; pension/family pension; retiral benefits paid; petition disposed of with liberty; petitioner deceased through LRs; State of Haryana represented by Suneel Ranga, DAG.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application within three months, if cause survives; pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶¶20, ¶21

Rajender Singh Vs State of Haryana — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

CWP-19416-2002 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

¶4

349 CWP-19416-2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.09.2025

¶5

RAJINDER SINGH DECEASED THROUGH LRS ...Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

STATE OF HARYANA …Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶9

Present:None for the petitioner

¶10

Mr. Suneel Ranga, DAG Haryana (through V.C.)

¶11

¶12

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order whereby respondent proposed to retire him in terms of Rule 9.18(2) of Punjab Police Rule, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana).

¶14

The impugned order seems to be passed in October’ 2002. Writ petition was admitted on 09.12.2002. There was no stay in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner joined service as Constable on 28.12.1970. He was proposed to retire in view of average ACRs as well as punishment of censure or stoppage of annual increment awarded on previous occasions. The respondent was of the opinion that petitioner is a habitual absentee and average Government servant. The petitioner had already completed 32 years’ service on the date of passing of impugned order. Thus, he must have been granted pension. He passed away on

¶15

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.09.02 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CWP-19416-2002 (O&M) -2-

¶17

20.12.2020. After his death his family must be getting family pension.

¶18

Learned State counsel submits that petitioner was compulsorily retired and paid all retiral benefits. Nothing is due against the respondent.

¶19

In view of afore-stated factual position, this Court at this stage does not find it appropriate to interfere with impugned order.

¶20

Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of with liberty to petitioner to move an appropriate application within three months, if cause survives.

¶21

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶22

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE

¶23

02.09.2025 Deepak DPA

¶24

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶25

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.09.02 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rajender Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajender Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narinder Singh Vs State of Hry. & Ors.

Vikram Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Dalel Singh Vs State of Hy.Etc.

Shashi Prabha Bansal Vs Dav College Managing Commitee etc.

Shashi Prabha Bansal Vs Dav College Managing Committee

Baljit Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab etc.