Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bikramjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 25 March, 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP NO. 26802 OF 2018
DATE OF DECISION :25.03.2021
Bikramjit Singh …Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others …Respondents
AND
CWP No. 27457 of 2018
Lakhbir Singh …Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others …Respondents
AND
CWP No. 38027 of 2018
Ramandeep Singh …Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others …Respondents
AND
CWP No. 29808 of 2018
Jashandeep Singh …Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others …Respondents
AND
CWP No. 29810 of 2018
Harcharan Singh …Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others …Respondents
For Subsequent orders see LPA-844-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH
SANDHAWALIA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
1 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2022 23:20:50 :::
AND
CWP No. 38030 of 2018
Harpreet Singh …Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others …Respondents
AND
CWP No. 38033 of 2018
Harwinder Singh …Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others …Respondents
AND
CWP No. 38037 of 2018
Gursimerjeet Singh …Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others …Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present : Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate and
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Kapila, Advocate,
for the petitioner (s)
Ms. KanicaSachdeva, AAG, Punjab.
ARUN MONGA, J.
These writ petitions are being decided vide instantsingle order
as material questions of facts and law involved for adjudication therein are
common.
2. Relevant factual narrative, as per CWP No.26802/2018,
succinctly is as under:
For Subsequent orders see LPA-844-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH
SANDHAWALIA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
2 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2022 23:20:50 :::
2.1 Punjab Government accorded sanction vide policy instructions
dated 11.09.1996 (AnnexureP-1) to 2% posts for the wards of deserving
policemen of the following categories, in direct recruitment of constables,
Sub Inspectors and Inspectors out of the direct recruitment quota previously
meant for handicapped persons.
Relevant of policy is as below:
The term “deserving” will cover wards of the following police
personnel:
(i) Who have suffered casualities of one or more the
following relatives:
1. Father
2. Mother
3. Sister/Brother
4. Son/Daughter
5. Any other dependent family member
(ii) Who has suffered permanent disability on the action
against terrorist or attack by terrorist.
OR
(iii) Who has been awarded President’s Police Gallantry or
Police Medal for Gallantry bravery in actions against the
terrorists.
OR
(iv) Who has taken part in atleast 3 encounters with terrorist.
OR
(v) Who otherwise in the opinion of the Director-General of
Police has been in forefront of the fight against
terrorism.
The “wards” proposed to covered widow, son,
dependent daughter, dependent brother sister or
any other dependent family member.”
2.2 In the year 2010, CWP No. 13493/2010 and a few other
connected writ petitions were filedin this Court invoking the above said
policy seeking mandamus to appoint the concerned petitioners, against
the reserved 2% posts for the wards of specified categories of deserving
policemen. This Court suo motu expanded the scope of writ proceedings
vide an order dated 15.09.2011, which reads as under:
For Subsequent orders see LPA-844-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH
SANDHAWALIA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
3 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2022 23:20:50 :::
“Let there be a show cause notice to the State
Government to explain the legal sanctity behind
providing 2% reservation for the wards of policemen for
recruitment as Constables. Assistant Sub Inspectors and
Inspectors out of direct recruitment quota which is
apparently contrary to the decision of this Court in the
case “Jagtar Singh and others v. State of Punjab and
others” 2006 (3) SLR 781 ?
List on 20.01.2012
Meanwhile, it is directed that till further orders, no
appointment against the above stated 2% reserved posts
shall be made in any rank.
Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned
Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for information and
necessary compliance.”
2.3 In the interregnum, Respondent No. 2 vide an advertisement
(Annexure P-2) (Colly) published in “The Tribune” dated 29.09.2011
invited applications for direct recruitment of 3726 constables wherein 2%
posts for wards of deserving policemen were reserved. Petitioner fulfilled
the qualifications, was eligible, applied for and was selected on merits
for appointment as a constable against 2% reserved posts for the wards
of deserving policemen as shown in the list of selected candidates
Annexure P-2(Colly).
2.4 Subsequently, aforesaid CWP No. 13493/2010 and the
other connected writ petitions were finally disposed of by this Court vide
judgment dated 11.03.2015 Annexure P-2directing as under:
“The only hitch before the State Government is because of
the order dated 15.09.2011 in which the question was
raised as to whether 2% reservation can be maintainable
in view of the Division Bench judgment in the case of
Jagtar Singh and others (supra). As I have already held
that there is no quarrel with the judgment of Judgment of
Jagtar Singh and others (supra), but had there been the
reservation only on the basis of ‘descent’ because the
reservation on the basis of ‘descent’ as provided under
Article 16 (2) of the Constitution of India has already
been struck off by the Supreme Court in the case of
Yogender Pal Singh and others (supra), then the said
For Subsequent orders see LPA-844-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH
SANDHAWALIA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
4 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2022 23:20:50 :::
reservation could not have been claimed by the selected
candidates but the reservation has been provided by
virtue of a policy, referred to above, which has not been
challenged either by the petitioner or the respondents,
therefore, keeping in view the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of Secretary to the Govt. and
another (Supra), it is directed that the said policy would
operate and the respondents/State shall consider the case
of the petitioners in the remaining writ petitions, namely,
CWP No.5147 of 2014, CWP No.20588 of 2013, CWP No.
24695 of 2012 and CWP No.21160 of 2012 for the
purpose of issuing appointment letters to them in
accordance with law.
With these observations, all the writ petitions, namely
CWP No.5147 of 2014, CWP No. 20588 of 2013, CWP
No. 24695 of 2012 and CWP No. 21160 of 2012 are
hereby disposed of.
Before parting, it would be relevant to mention that in
the Ist petition an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the CPC”)
has been filed by some of the persons, who were also
selected and tried to intervene in this petition. Though
there is no such writ petition on their behalf but keeping
in view the fact they are similarly situated persons with
those candidates who had filed their separate writ
petition, in which it is pleaded that they have been
selected but appointment letters are not issued to them
because of the order passed by this court on 15.09.2011,
their cases be also considered by the State while
considering the case of the writ petitioners.”
2.5 As a consequence, respondent No. 2 issued instructions vide
letter dated 10.04.2015 Annexure P-4 to the concerned authorities
directing that the candidates who had not joined duty and who were not
issued appointment letters, be issued appointment letters as per the orders
passed by this Court in CWP No. 13493/2010 and the other connected writ
petitions.
2.6 Accordingly, petitioner was issued appointment letter dated
28.05.2015 (Annexure P-5) and joined duty. Some other similarly selected
candidates were also issued appointment letters and joined duties.
For Subsequent orders see LPA-844-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH
SANDHAWALIA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
5 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2022 23:20:50 :::
2.7 However, a few other candidates, who were similarly selected
against this reserved quota but were not issued appointment letters, filed
writ petitions, including CWP No. 11606/2015. These were disposed of by
this Court vide common order dated 16.01.2018 (Annexure P-9) in
following terms:
” In the circumstances, the instant writ petitions are
disposed of with a direction to the respondents to examine as to
whether the case of the petitioners is at par with said Lakhvir
Singh. If upon examination, the competent authority comes to
the conclusion that the petitioners are at par with Lakhvir Singh,
the consequential relief be accorded to them within eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment
subject to the following conditions :
1. All other candidates who applied for the post of Constable
in 2% quota of wards of police personnel in the year 2011
will be considered subject to the conditions that they fall
within requisite merit list of their respective district.
2. The appointment letter would be issued from fresh date after
their fulfilling the conditions of medical fitness, scrutiny of
documents, character verification etc.
3. They will be entitled for notional benefits for the purposes of
seniority and no monetary benefits would be granted to them
w.e.f 2011, as per the principle of ‘No work No Pay’. Their
pay and other service conditions would be as applicable on
the date of their appointment.
In case, it is found that said Lakhvir Singh had been
appointed in violation of the policy, the respondents shall take
necessary action against him.
Disposed of.”
2.8 Show cause notice dated 13.07.2018 Annexure P-10 was
issued by respondent No. 3 asking for the petitioner’s explanation
before terminating his services. Its relevant parties as under:
” Due to stay orders in Civil Writ Petition No. 13493 of
2010 tilted as Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, against the
appointments for 2% quota, no 2% quota was kept reserved for
the police wards in the advertisement of 2011. A corrigendum
was also issued in this regard in the papers. Despite the same,
you Lakhbir Singh No.672/Ferozepur and Bikramjit Singh
No.77/Ferozepur have illegally applied by wrong means
against the advertisement issued in September 2011 and
obtained against 2% quota of police wards. By keeping in view
For Subsequent orders see LPA-844-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH
SANDHAWALIA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
6 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2022 23:20:50 :::
the decisions of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Courts
in various writ petitions, the Worthy Director General of
Police, Punjab, Chandigarh has granted permission to
terminate your services. Therefore, before terminating your
services, I am granting you an opportunity to give your
explanation. In case you want to say something, then you are
requested to submit a written reply to the undersigned within a
period of 10 days from receipt of this notice.
You are also informed that in case, you do not submit any
written reply within the stipulated period, then final order of
punishment proposed against you shall be passed against you.”
2.9 The petitioner submitted his detailed reply dated 18.07.2018
Annexure P/11 defending his appointment. He also filed CWP No.
18051/2018 challenging the show cause notice. The said writ petition was
dismissed as premature vide an order dated 24.07.2018 passed by this Court.
2.10 Impugned order dated 11.10.2018 Annexure P/13 was then
passed by respondent No. 3 terminating the services of the petitioner herein
and also of LakhbirSingh, petitioner in connected CWP No.27457/2018.
2.11 Interim order dated 17.10.2018 was passéd by this Court in the
present writ petition (CWP No. 26802/2018) directing that the operation of
the impugned order Annexure P/13 shall remain stayed qua the petitioner.
3. In their reply to the petition, respondents have pleaded that in
the advertisement published in “The Tribune” on 29.09.2011, there was no
mention of keeping any reservation for the wards of police personnel.
Inadvertently, the news papers “Ajit” and “Punjab Kesri” on 28.09.2011 and
29.09.2011, respectively had printed wrong advertisements and published
availability of vacancies under 2% quota meant for the wards of the police
personnel. In order to rectify the same and make the position clear, a
corrigendum was published highlighting that “no relaxation/benefit will be
given to the wards of police personnel”. This corrigendum was sent by the
Director General of Police, Punjab (respondent No. 2) to the Director, Public
For Subsequent orders see LPA-844-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH
SANDHAWALIA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
7 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2022 23:20:50 :::
Relations, Punjab, Chandigarh vide memo dated 04.10.2011 for publication
in the newspapers namely “Ajit” “Punjab Kesri” and “The Tribune”.
Despite this, the petitioner herein and Lakhbir Singh applied for and were
appointed under 2% quota for the wards of police personnel in violation of
the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 28/29.09.2011.
Therefore, respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 03.07.2018 directed the
concerned SSP (respondent No. 3) to take necessary steps with regard to the
illegal appointments of the petitioner herein and Lakhbir Singh as
constables. In this connection, detailed order dated 08.08.2018 Annexure
R/1 was also issued by respondent No. 2. Show cause notices were issued
to both these persons and after considering their replies, their services were
rightly terminated. Preliminary objection was also taken that the aforesaid
detailed order dated 08.08.2018, Annexure R/1, is binding on the petitioner,
but has not even been referred to, let alone challenged by him and
therefore, the petitioner is left with no claim for relief.
4. Petitioner filed rejoinder saying that order dated 08.08.2018
Annexure R/1 had not been conveyed to him and re-iterated the averments
and claim in the writ petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and, with their
able assistance, gone through the record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended
that,in CWP No. 26802/2018 and CWP No.27457/2018, at the time of the
publication of the advertisement, the policy for 2% reservation for the wards
of deserving police personnel subsisted and was operative; the relevant
advertisement specifically provided for this reservation; the petitioners
fulfilled the criteria for being considered against this quota; they were duly
For Subsequent orders see LPA-844-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH
SANDHAWALIA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
8 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2022 23:20:50 :::
selected and, on vacation of the stay against appointments, they were rightly
appointed. There was nothing wrong or illegal on the part of the petitioners
in applying for the posts, their selection and appointments. Still, on totally
wrong and untenable facts, show cause notices were issued to them and
illegal orders were passed terminating their services.
7. In remaining petitions, learned counsel for the petitioners
argued similarly. He contended that petitioners were rightly selected on the
basis of merit and the rejection of their claim for appointment was illegal.
8. It has been argued by the leaned counsel for the respondents
that there was no quota reserved for the wards of deserving police
personnel in the relevant advertisement and yet the petitioners wrongly
applied for, got selected and obtained appointments against that quota. As
such, the petitioners, who thus got appointed, were rightly served with show
cause notices and termination of their services was in accordance with law.
Qua the remaining petitioners, it was contended that their claims for
appointment was against reserved quota were rightly rejected.
9. Having applied my mind to the relevant facts and record and
the submissions on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the
opinion that these bunch of petitions merit being allowed.
10. It is not disputed that at the time of publication of the relevant
advertisement in September, 2011, the policy for reservation of 2% posts
for the wards of deserving police personnel subsisted, though there was a
stay order dated 15.09.2011 passed by this Court in CWP No. 13493/2010
and the other connected writ petitions directing that till further, no further
appointment be made against this quota. The petitioners applied for and
were selected on merits for appointment against this quota. These writ
For Subsequent orders see LPA-844-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH
SANDHAWALIA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
9 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2022 23:20:50 :::
were finally disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 11.03.2015
Annexure P-2, upholding the policy decision/instructions of the State for
this reservation. The aforesaid policy decision/instructions of the
Government for reserving 2% posts in direct recruitment for the wards of
deserving police personnel subsist and are operative. Their legality and
validity are not questioned in the present writ petitions. As already noted,
these were upheld by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment
dated 11.03.2015, Annexure P-2.
11. Crux of the allegations against the petitioner in the show cause
notice dated 13.07.2018 for terminating his services is that due to stay
order dated 15.09.2011 in CWP 13493/2010 against appointments for 2%
quota, no 2% quota was kept reserved for the police wards in the
advertisement of 2011; that a corrigendum was also issued in this regard in
the papers and despite the same, he and Lakhbir Singh( Petitioner in CWP
No. 27457/2018) had illegally applied by wrong means against the
advertisement issued in September, 2011 and obtained the appointment
against 2% quota of police wards.
12. Let us now see whether or not these allegations against the
petitioner have been established on record.
13. Petitioner has filed relevant advertisement Annexure P/2
published in “The Tribune” on 29.09.2011. It clearly contains text inter alia ,
that as per instructions issued by the Government from time to time, 25%
seats for Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes, 12% seats for backward Classes,
13% for Ex-Servicemen, 2% seats for wards of Police personnel& 1% seat
for wards of Freedom Fighters are reserved. Respondents have not filed any
such advertisement, which according to them, was published in “The
For Subsequent orders see LPA-844-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH
SANDHAWALIA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
10 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2022 23:20:50 :::
Tribune” and had no mention of keeping any reservation for the wards of
police personnel. They have also not produced on record any other
advertisement, which they claim was published in “The Tribune” and had
no mention of keeping any reservation for the wards of police personnel.
Record thus supports the contention of the petitioner that advertisement
Annexure P/2 published in “The Tribune” on 29.09.2011 contained text
inter alia , that “as per instructions issued by the Government from time to
time, 25% seats for Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes, 12% seats for
backward Classes, 13% for Ex-Servicemen, 2% seats for wards of Police
personnel& 1% seat for wards of Freedom Fighters are reserved” and
negates the contrary stand of the respondents.
14. As noted above, it is the own case of the respondents that the
news papers “Ajit” and “Punjab Kesri” on 28.09.2011 and 29.09.2011
respectively had printed, wrongly though, advertisements and published
availability of vacancies under 2% quota meant for the wards of the police
personnel. They have not produced any document to show actual
publication of any corrigendum in the newspapers “Ajit” “Punjab Kesri”
and “The Tribune”, which they claim, highlighted that “no
relaxation/benefit will be given to the wards of police personnel”. This Court
is, therefore, unable to accept the stand of the respondents that a
corrigendum was published in the newspapers namely “Ajit” “Punjab
Kesri” and “The Tribune” highlighting that “no relaxation/benefit will be
given to the wards of police personnel”.
15. It follows from the above observations that the relevant
advertisements as published contained text inter alia to the effect that as
per instructions issued by the Government from time to time, 25% seats for
For Subsequent orders see LPA-844-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH
SANDHAWALIA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
11 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2022 23:20:50 :::
Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes, 12% seats for backward Classes, 13% for
Ex-Servicemen, 2% seats for wards of Police personnel& 1% seat for wards
of Freedom Fighters are reserved.
16. Admittedly, the petitioner fulfilled the qualifications and
criteria to apply pursuant to advertisement Annexure P/2 for consideration
against this reserved quota and was selected in November, 2011 on the
basis of his eligibility and merit. He cannot, therefore,be faulted or
penalized for wrongly submitting anapplication and his selection under this
reserved category.
17. In CWP No. 13493/2010 and connected writ petitions, this
Court had suo motu passed an interim order dated 15.09.2011 directing
that till further orders, no appointment against 2% reserved posts for wards
of deserving police personnel shall be made in any rank. It seems that owing
to this stay order, the respondents had kept the petitioner’s appointment on
hold.
18. The aforesaid writ petitions were finally disposed of by this
Court vide judgment dated 11.03.2015 Annexure P-2 upholding the
provision for 2% reservation for wards of deserving police personnel and
directing that the policy would operate and the respondents/State shall
consider the cases of the concerned petitioners and other candidates for the
purpose of issuing appointment letters to them.
19. It was after this judgment dated 11.03.2015 that respondent No.
2 issued letter dated 10.04.2015 Annexure P/4 directing issuance of
appointment letters to the concerned candidates selected against this
reserved quota. Petitioner was also issued appointment letter dated
28.05.2015 Annexure P-5 and joined duty.
For Subsequent orders see LPA-844-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH
SANDHAWALIA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
12 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2022 23:20:50 :::
20. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner
wrongly obtained appointment as constable against reserved vacancy. He
cannot, therefore, be blamed or penalized for illegally or wrongfully
obtaining the appointment against 2% quota of police wards.
21. Respondents pleaded that vide a detailed administrative order
dated 08.08.2018,(Annexure R/1) respondent No. 2 held the appointments of
the petitioner and Lakhbir Singh to be in violation of the terms and
conditions of the advertisement. They thus deserved to be discharged from
service.Accordingly, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur directed
vide letter dated 03.07.2018 to take necessary steps against these constables.
However, the petitioner has not challenged the said order, owing to which he
cannot get any relief. It is asserted in the petitioner’s replication that this
order dated 08.08.2018 Annexure R/1 was not communicated to him.
Perusal of the document shows that it was not even addressed to the
petitioner. No material has been produced to show that this order was
communicated to the petitioner before filing of the writ petition. It cannot,
therefore, be said that while filing the petition, the petitioner deliberately did
not challenge the same. Be that as it may, even otherwise, absence of
challenge there to would not relieve this Court of the duty to exercise its
jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India to pass
appropriate orders in the interest of justice.
22. Accordingly, it is held that the show cause notice dated
13.07.2018 Annexure P/10, order dated 08.08.2018 Annexure R/1 and the
impugned order dated 11.10.2018 Annexure P-13 for termination of the
petitioner’s services cannot be sustained on facts and in law and deserve to
be set aside.
For Subsequent orders see LPA-844-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH
SANDHAWALIA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
13 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2022 23:20:50 :::
23. Facts and the circumstances in CWP No. 27457/2018 filed by
Lakhbir Singh are analogous. Therefore, similar orders are required to be
passed in his case too. Accordingly, it is held that the show cause notice
dated 13.07.2018 Annexure P/10, order dated 08.08.2018 Annexure R/1
and the impugned order dated 11.10.2018 Annexure P-13 for termination of
the petitioner’s services also cannot be sustained on facts and in law and
deserve to be set aside.
24. Petitioners in CWPs No. 29808, 29810, 38030, 38033, 38037,
38027 of 2018 are similarly placed with the petitioners in CWP
No.26802/2018 and CWP No. 27457/2018, except that the former have not
yet been actually appointed and their claims for appointment have been
rejected by the respondents. They, inter alia, seek mandamus directing the
respondents to issue them the letters of appointment as constable. Thus
being the position and for the foregoing reasons, the relevant orders
rejecting their claim for appointment deserve to be set aside with direction
to the respondents that subject to their eligibility at the time of selection in
2011 and fulfillment of other relevant procedural requirements, these
petitioners be issued letters of appointment as constables against 2% quota
meant for the wards of the police personnel.
25. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of in following
terms:
25.1. CWP 26802/2018-Bikramjeet Singh:
(i) Show cause notice dated 13.07.2018 Annexure P/10, order dated
08.08.2018 (Annexure R/1) and the impugned order dated
11.10.2018 (Annexure P-13) for termination of the petitioner’s
services are set aside.
For Subsequent orders see LPA-844-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH
SANDHAWALIA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
14 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2022 23:20:50 :::
(ii) On the principle of no work no pay, the period during which the
petitioner remained out of service because of termination of his
services till rejoining duty, will be treated as dies-non for which
he will not be entitled to any pecuniary and pensionary benefits
25.2. CWP No. 27457/2018 filed by Lakhbir Singh:
(i) Show cause notice dated 13.07.2018 Annexure P/10, order dated
08.08.2018 Annexure R/1 and the impugned order dated
11.10.2018 Annexure P-13 for termination of the petitioner’s
services are set aside.
(ii) the period during which the petitioner remained out of service,
because of termination of his services till rejoining duty, will be treated as
dies-non for which he will not be entitled to any pecuniary and pensionary
benefits
25.3. CWPs No. 29808, 29810, 38030,38033, 38037,38027 of 2018:
(i) Relevant impugned orders dated 20.08.2018 (Annexure P-12) in
CWP No. 29808/2018 and CWP No.29810/2018, orders dated
08.08.2018 (Annexure P-10) in CWPs No. 38030/2018 and
38033/2018and order dated 20.08.2018 (Annexure P-10) in CWP
No. 38037/2018rejecting the claim the petitioners for
appointment as constables against 2% quota meant for the wards of
the police personnel are set aside
(ii) It is directed that subject to their eligibility at the time of selection
in 2011 and fulfilling other relevant procedural requirements,
the respondents shall issue letters of appointment to the petitioners
as constables against 2% quota meant for the wards of the police
personnel.
For Subsequent orders see LPA-844-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH
SANDHAWALIA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
15 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2022 23:20:50 :::
(iii) Needful as at (ii) be done by the respondents within two months of
the receipt of certified copy of this order.
26. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
27. Petitions allowed, as above. No order as to costs.
25.03.2021. (ARUN MONGA)
Shalini JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
For Subsequent orders see LPA-844-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH
SANDHAWALIA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
16 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2022 23:20:50 :::
Comments