IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

104 DECIDED ON: 13.11.2025 SANJIT SINGH AND ORS.

......PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Pawan K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Anita Balyan, Advocate for the respondents SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J Relief Sought

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under articles 226/227 of the constitution of India for issuance of writ order or direction for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.01.2016(Annexure P-32) and reply to. the legal notice dated 22.03.2016 vide which the claim of the petitioners to protect their seniority in select list 'C' at par with their junior counterpart on the basis of standing order 1/92 dated 22.07.1992(Annexure P-1) vide which respondent No.3, has granted the benefit of seniority to similarly situated employees vide order dated 14.10.2012 (Annexure p-6), 19.11.2012(Annexure P-7), 01.01.2013 (Annexure P-8) and 10.10.2014(Annexure P-24 to P-27), being discriminatory, arbitrary, and ITBP service rules with a further prayer to direct the Respondents to Re-fix the seniority, date of promotion, ACP financial up-gradation by brining the petitioner select list 'C-2003' at par with their junior counterpart on the basis of standing order 1/92 dated

22.07.1992(Annexure P-1) interest @ 12% p.a. along with entire consequential benefits w.e.f. respective dates of their completion of 10/20 years of Service, already granted to the other similarly situated employees w.e.f. 09.08.1999.

Brief facts

2. The petitioners were appointed as Constables (GD) in the Indo- Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) during the years 1987–1989. While remaining under the command and control of ITBP, they were sent on deputation to Delhi Police from 2001 to 2005 and were thereafter repatriated to ITBP. During the period of deputation, departmental promotional courses/tests, namely JCC/PPSLC, were conducted in 2002–2003, in which several similarly situated personnel recruited along with or junior to the petitioners were benefited. The petitioners, however, were never informed or intimated about the conduct of such courses either by ITBP or by Delhi Police. Subsequent inquiries made by the respondent department from Delhi Police confirmed that no record was available to show that the petitioners were ever informed or that they had expressed unwillingness to appear in the said promotional tests, a fact which has also been admitted by the respondent department in its impugned order dated 14.01.2016.

3. After their repatriation, the petitioners qualified the requisite JCC/PPSLC courses in their first attempt from time to time and were placed in Select List ‘C’. As per Standing Order No. 1/92 dated 22.07.1992, the seniority of personnel who could not attend promotional courses due to unavoidable force commitments is required to be protected, subject to qualifying the course in the first attempt. The respondent department has extended the benefit of this Standing Order to several similarly situated employees, including juniors and even those who were on deputation, leave, or other assignments, and has granted them protected seniority, promotions, ACP benefits, and consequential financial advantages. However, despite recommendations from sector headquarters, repeated representations, legal notices, and even directions issued by this Court in earlier proceedings, the petitioners have been denied similar relief on a pick-and-choose basis.

4. As a result, juniors recruited after the petitioners have been promoted and granted higher pay scales, compelling the petitioners to work under their control. Aggrieved by same, the petitioner has preferred petition.

Contentions On behalf of the petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during their deputation to Delhi Police, the petitioners remained under the control of ITBP and were never informed about the JCC/PPSLC promotional courses held in 2002–2003,