Dismissed¶18

Shri Bhagwan v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Aug 2025CWP/2430/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compulsory/early retirement of police personnel at 55; Rule 9.18(1)(c) Punjab Police Rules 1934 (Haryana); challenge to retirement notice/order dated 22.12.2021; writ petition (CWP) under Articles 226/227 Constitution of India; petition dismissed, retirement order left intact; pensionable service context (50% of last drawn salary); Punjab & Haryana High Court, 08.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

This Court does not find it appropriate to set aside the order whereby the petitioner was made to retire at the age of 55 years. ¶17

Shri Bhagwan Vs State of Haryana and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

CWP-2430-2022 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

213 CWP-2430-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.08.2025

¶5

Shri Bhagwan …Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and others …Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶9

Present: - Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Suneel Ranga, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana ***

¶10

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J . (Oral)

¶11

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of notice/order dated 22.12.2021 whereby he has been made to retire at the age of 55 years.

¶12

Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate appeared and filed his Power of Attorney on behalf of the petitioner with no objection from previous counsel. The same is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.

¶13

The respondent by impugned notice/order has retired the petitioner on attaining the age of 55 years. The said order has been passed in exercise of power conferred by Rule 9.18(1)(c) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (for short ‘ PPR ’). The impugned order was passed in December’ 2021. Had the impugned order not been passed, MOHIT KUMARthe petitioner would have worked for three more years. He was part of 2025.08.08 13:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶14

CWP-2430-2022 (O&M)

¶15

-2-

¶16

Haryana Police Force and his service was pensionable, thus, he must have received pension which is 50% of last drawn salary. He had not worked during said period.

¶17