Disposed¶25

Dev Dutt v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jan 2026CWP/8131/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP-8131-2023, decided 22.01.2026 by Jagmohan Bansal, J.: challenge to revision of date of promotion as DSP (order dated 07.03.2019) following combined seniority list of PAP and District Police prepared per CWP No.4829 of 2011 (SI Pardeep Singh); protection of ranks of 46 DSPs and 18 Inspectors and sports persons by order dated 07.06.2016; petitioner received full salary 2013-2019, salary never reduced, no financial detriment; no further order warranted; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Since the petitioner received full salary during his tenure from 2013 to 2019 as DSP and his salary was never reduced, the change of the date of his promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police does not financially affect him. ¶24

Dev Dutt Vs State of Punjab and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CWP-8131-2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

262

¶5

CWP-8131-2023 Date of Decision: 22.01.2026

DEV DUTT

...PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶11

¶12

Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

¶14

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

¶15

On 16.01.2026, the following order was passed:-

¶16

“The petitioner was promoted as DSP w.e.f. 27.07.2012 by order dated 26.02.2013. The respondent in terms of judgment of this Court in CWP No.4829 of 2011 titled as ‘SI Pardeep Singh and Others Versus State of Punjab and Others’ prepared combined seniority list of members of PAP and District Police. This culminated in change of seniority of many officials. There were few officials who became eligible to promotion and few became ineligible to promotion from retrospective date. The respondent vide order dated 07.06.2016 protected rank of 46 DSPs and 18 Inspectors who were holding said ranks on the date of revision of seniority. They were not sports persons. The respondent further protected higher ranks of sports persons. The petitioner was not considered for reversion, thus, he was not considered for ex-cadre rank. He continued to work as DSP. In 2019 by impugned order dated 07.03.2019, the respondent revised his date of promotion as DSP from 07.03.2019. The petitioner is going to retire on 31.05.2027. He received salary during 2013-2019 as DSP. There is no likelihood that at the

¶17

KUSUM 2026.01.22 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh

¶18

CWP-8131-2023

¶19

¶20

time of retirement, he would get lesser retiral dues on account of change of date of promotion as DSP. The petitioner is apprehending that change of date of promotion as DSP may affect his further promotion as well as financial benefits at the time of retirement.

¶21

Learned State counsel seeks time to clarify factual and legal position.

¶22

Adjourned to 22.01.2026.

¶23

To be taken up immediately after the urgent matters.”

¶24

Learned State counsel submits that Sukhdev Singh has already retired as Deputy Superintendent of Police. The petitioner has received full salary during his tenure from 2013 to 2019 as DSP. His salary was never reduced. Change of date of his promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police does not financially affect him.

¶25