JUDGMENT

DESAI, J.:— Special leave granted.

2. It is rather unfortunate that the respondents despite the judgment of this Court in Sengara Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 4. SCC 225 by their inaction force low paid police constables to come to this Court and occasionally devious methods are employed to circumvent the decision.

3. In Sengara Singhs case this Court held that the State Government cannot discriminate in the matter of condoning the lapse between two government servants wholly similarly situated. This Court held as under (at P. 1673 of Lab IC)

"As a sequel to police agitation, the State Government dismissed about 1100 members of the Police Force on the allegation that they participated in the agitation. The State Government also filed criminal prosecutions against a large number of the agitators. Subsequently, the State Government reinstated 1000 dismissed members of the Police Force in their original posts and withdrew the criminal cases against them. If the filing of the criminal cases was the distinguish feature, which would distinguish the case of the present appellants from others, that feature has become irrelevant because the criminal cases against those who were subsequently reinstated have been withdrawn. It is not suggested that the present appellants were leaders or indulged into more violent activities. We repeatedly questioned the learned counsel to specify the distinguishing features of the present appellants, from those in whose case the Committee recommended the reinstatement and the State Government accepted the recommandation There is not an iota of evidence which would distinguish the case of the present appellants from those who were the beneficiaries of the indulgence of the Committee and the largesse of the State. The net result has been that the present appellants have been arbitrarily weeded out for discriminatory and more severe treatment than those who were similarly situated. This discrimination is writ large on the record and the Court cannot overlook the same."

This Court directed reinstatement of the appellants in that case. It appeared that some of the members of the police Force who could not afford the luxury of rushing to this Court, subsequently at intervals approached the Court for similar relief, and the same was invariably granted. It was also pointed out to the learned counsel for the respondent State that the State should extend the benefit of the judgment of this Court to all who are similarly situated. However, the response is unsatisfactory. This case will illustrate the same.

4. Appellant joined service as constable in the Police Force of Punjab on July 7, 1951. It was alleged that he participated in the agitation by the members of the Police Force in the year 1979. He was Prosecuted for an offence under Sec. 20 of the Police Act read with Sec. 9 of the Punjab Security and E. C. M. Act. Consequent upon the launching of the prosecution, appellant was suspended from service. But it is admitted that the Prosecution was subsequently withdrawn. Thereafter, the appellant was reinstated on February 11, 1980 and on the same day he was compulsorily retired from service, after giving him pay for a period of three months in lieu of notice. The appellant contended that order of compulsory retirement was a device to circumvent the decision of this Court and, therefore, a mere show was made of reinstating him in service and compulsorily retiring him from service on the same day. The appellant accordingly questioned the validity of the order of compulsory retirement in Civil Writ Petition No. 1137 of 1983 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition in limine. Hence this appeal by special leave.

5. A notice to show cause was issued calling upon the respondent to explain why special leave should not be granted. Mr. S. K. Bagga, learned counsel appeared for the respondents. When the matter came up before this Court on January