Dismissed¶15

Paramjeet Singh Surjewala and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 May 2026LPA/1587/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court; LPA-1587-2026 (O&M); decision dated 29.05.2026; appellants Paramjeet Singh Surjewala and ors vs State of Haryana and others; Letters Patent Appeal dismissed in view of LPA-587-2026 (ASI Sandeep Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana and others); State policy non-interference; Article 14 Constitution of India; grievance to extend benefit of OPS merited no interference; pending misc. applications disposed; coram Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Rohit Kapoor JJ.

What did the court decide?

Adopting the view taken in LPA-587-2026 (ASI Sandeep Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana and others), the Court held that the present appeal lacks merit and dismissed it. ¶15

Paramjeet Singh Surjewala and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

153 I N THE HIGH COURT OF PU N JAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI G ARH

¶3

LPA-1 5 87-2026 (O&M) Date o f Decision: 29.05.2026

¶4

Paramjeet Si n gh Surjewala and ors …Appellants

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State of Hary a na and others …Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR

¶8

Present: M r. J.S. Toor, Sr. Advocate with M r. Adhiraj Toor, Advocate for t he appellants. ***

¶9

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

¶10

C ontroversy raised in the instan t appeal fell for consideration b e fore this Court in LPA-587-2026, titled as ASI Sandeep Kumar & Ors. vs. State of

¶11

Haryana and others , wherein, this Cour t while dismissing the appeal has observed as u nder:-

¶12

“ 15. The premise on which th e appellants’ claim is raised, t hus, f ound to be misplaced and not sustainable. We are, otherwis e , in r espectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Si n gle J udge that the decision of the S t ate Government lies in the real m of p olicy and the Courts would ge n erally be reluctant to interfere w ith it unless such policy is shown t o be violative of Article 14 o f the C onstitution of India or other w ise shown to be contrary to any a pplicable law. Once we find th a t the policy is not discriminato r y or v iolative of Article 14 of the C onstitution of India, the griev a nce r aised by the appellants to ext e nd the benefit of OPS, merite d no interference. Consequently, find i ng no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.”