SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1084

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.
Talwinder Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-8509 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 06-03-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Pawan Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

Claims for promotion based on past incidents must be timely; significant delays can render them time-barred, impacting the right to relief.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Promotion in Punjab Police - Petitioner sought promotion on grounds of his father's injury during a militant attack, claiming entitlement to out of turn promotion - Respondents argued the claim was time-barred as it was made nearly three decades later - Court noted the claim was stale but requested consideration in light of similar cases. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Time Bar - The court emphasized that the delay in claiming benefits can lead to acquiescence, impacting the validity of the claim. (Paras 4-6)

JUDGMENT

Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to grant him promotion on the ground that his father was attacked by militants who became blind in the said incident.

2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police as Constable. In 1990, two unknown persons attacked at the residence of the petitioner. The petitioner and his father at that point of time were at home. A gun battle took place between both sides. The father of the petitioner was injured in the said incident and he lost his vision. He ultimately passed away in 2011. The petitioner came to be promoted as Head Constable in 2006 and thereafter ASI w.e.f. 24.09.2018.

3. Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate submits that respondent has extended benefit of out of turn promotion to terrorist affected police officials, however, no benefit has been granted to petitioner despite the fact that there was an attack on his family wherein his father lost his vision.

4. Mr. Pawan Kumar DAG, Punjab submits that alleged incident took place in 1990 and petitioner remained silent from 1990 to 2019. During the intervening period, he was promoted from the post of Constable to Head Constable and thereafter Assistant Sub Inspector. The claim of the petitioner is hopelessly time barred.

5. I have heard arguments of counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is conceded fact that petitioner for the first time lodged his claim of out of turn promotion in 2019 whereas his father suffered injury in 1990. The assailants were found involved in terrorists activities. The claim of the petitioner is based upon benefit extended to similarly situated employees. The claim of the petitioner is prima facie stale and by his act and conduct, he has acquiesced. Nevertheless, this Court deems it appropriate to request the respondents to consider case of petitioner in the light of similarly situated persons.

7. Disposed of.

8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top