Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Akshit Pathania, Advocate for Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab and Ms. Shiny Chopra, AAG, Punjab

JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

1. The petitioners have instituted the instant petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the '1971 Act') seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their willful and intentional disobedience of directions issued vide judgment dated 24.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed in CWP-11697-2022, titled as Bahadur Singh and another V/s State ofPunjab and others.

2. Petitioner No.1 (Bahadur Singh) is a Padam Shri Awardee of 2006. He was also conferred the Maharaja Ranjit Singh Award in 1999. He is an athlete of international repute, having participated in the Olympic Games-2000 and 2004 and Asian Games in 1998 and 2002 and other coveted tournaments. He is stated to be a Gold Medal Awardee in the Asian Games held in 2002.

3. Petitioner No.2 (Manjit Singh) is also an athlete of international repute having won a Gold Medal in the Junior Asian Championship held in 1992 and having participated in various other championships, the details of which have been set out in the petition.

4. In recognition of their outstanding achievements, they were appointed as Constables in Punjab Police in 1990. They were granted out of turn promotions. They were promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in 2001 (Annexure P-3). They were also designated as Superintendent of Police in 2010 and 2011 respectively in the regular cadre of DSPs (Annexure P-4).

5. As is the case in most services, a seniority dispute erupted between the members of the cadre as a result of which, the petitioners preferred CWP-11697-2022 seeking setting aside of the seniority list dated 03.07.2020 vide which their names had been excluded from the final seniority list.

6. The aforesaid writ petition was decided vide judgment dated 24.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) by a coordinate Bench. A direction was issued to the respondents to create posts of higher ranks i.e. SP/SSP/AIG/DIG and ADGP for 207 sportspersons belonging to the dying cadre, which had been created vide order dated 18.05.2011. A time frame of six months was fixed for the creation of the aforesaid posts of higher ranks. It was further directed that in case the said posts were not created within a period of six months, the petitioners would form part of the seniority list of regular cadre of DSPs.

7. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the lapse of six months, posts of higher ranks have not been created and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be a part of the seniority list of regular cadre of DSPs. They allege willful disobedience of the directions issued on 24.09.2024 and also seek compliance of the same.

8. Upon notice having been issued, a status report by way of affidavit of Sh. Alok Shekhar, Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Punjab, was filed, stating that the State had drafted '207 Specially Promoted Cadre Service Rules, 2025' after obtaining approval from the Department of Personnel, Department of Finance and the Punjab Public Service Commission. It was also averred that the petitioners, on one hand had filed LPA No.2436-2024 challenging the judgment dated 24.09.2024 and on the other hand, had instituted the instant contempt petition. It was further averred that due to administrative exigencies, the draft rules were pending approval by the Cabinet and that the process was underway and was likely to be completed shortly.

9. Subsequently, an additional affidavit was filed giving the time line of the process of framing/approval of the said rules. As per the same, after judgment dated 24.09.2024 having been put up before the Chief Minister of the State on 04.10.2024, directions were issued on 05.10.2024 to prepare the proposal for a separate promotional channel and various other dates have been set out in the affidavit, which shall be discussed at the relevant stage.

10. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

11. Mr. Akshit Pathania, learned counsel representing the petitioners, vehe