IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-1884-2025 Date of Decision: 24.01.2025 Bhagwant Singh and others ......Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Nitesh Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioners through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of order dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure P-16) whereby respondent has rejected their claim to count the previous service for the purpose of seniority.

2. The respondent has passed the impugned order in compliance of order dated 07.12.2023 passed by this Court in CWP-27550-2023, Suchwinder Pal and others vs. State of Punjab and others. The relevant extracts of impugned order dated 23.04.2024 are reproduced as below:- “12. The present petitioners mentioned at serial No. 05, 06 to 08, 26, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 53, 55, 56, 61, 64, 65, 69, 71, 74, 75, 77 to 79, 83, 84, 86, 100, 101, 104, 105 and 112 passed the suitability test in the year-1997. However, they were not granted deemed date of enlistment as constable (Notional Pay Fixation) because as per information supplied by the concerned Senior Superintendents of Police, no SPO junior to the petitioners was enlisted as constable on out of turn basis in their respective Districts.

The petitioners mentioned at serial No. 29, 32, 52, 72 and 93 passed the suitability test in the year-2000. The petitioners mentioned at serial No. 01 tο 04, 09 to 19, 21 to 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 41 to 43, 47, 48, 50,54, 58, 59, 62, 63, 66 to 68, 70, 73, 76, 80, 82, 85, 87, 89, 90, 95 to 97, 102, 103, 106, 108 and 109 to 111 passed the suitability test in the year-2002. The petitioners, mentioned at serial No. 20, 35, 44, 57, 88, 92 and 107 passed the suitability test in the year-2004. The SPO's who passed the suitability test after 1997 with reduced standards, were not granted the benefits of notional pay fixation fram deemed date. The decision of the department in this regard was in consonance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 12.12.1996 in CWP No.7451 of 1996, as mentioned above and directions issued by the Director General of Police, Punjab vide office memo No.16318-40/E-3 dated 02.07.1999 and 6087/LA-2 dated

24.07. 2000.

The petitioners mentioned at serial No. 38, 81, 98 and 99 were enlisted as Constable in Band Staff and Serial No. 91 and 94 were Constable as special case. Thus, their cases are not comparable.

The petitioner mentioned at Sr. No.45 was selected for absorption as constable in suitability test of June-1993, The petitioner is staking his claim after the lapse of more than 28 years. Therefore, his claim is not acceptable at this stage, being time barred.

The petitioner mentioned at Sr. No.60 had already been granted deemed date of seniority w.e.f 24.02.1994 on the recommendation of Senior Superintendent of Police, Sri Fatehgarh Sahib vide this office order No. 44349/OASI dated 23.09.2000.

13.It is further submitted that vide order dated 31.08.2010 passed in CWP No.2371 of 2010 titled as Harbans Lal & others, petitioners were granted relief of daily wage service towards qualifying period for pension purpose only. They were not given benefit of seniority of ad-hoc/daily wage service by the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, as far as claim of pension is concerned, directions have been issued vide this office letter No.4247/Litigation Cell dated 01.02.2024 to the concerned Battalion Commandant to decide the claim of the present petitioners in term of the judgment passed in Halbans Lal's case by passing a speaking orders in compliance of order dated 29.11.2022 passed by Hon'ble High Court.

14. The petitioners of CWP No.5648 of 2017 titled as HC/PR Sukhmander Singh No.457/SMS Nagar and others versus State of Punjab and others were found suitable for the post of constables in the sui