CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5062 of 2008 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 27,2009 Papinder Singh & others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners are aggrieved against the order whereby benefit of 50% back wages granted by Director General of Police has been ordered to be withdrawn. They would accordingly plead for quashing the order in this regard by terming the same to be illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 55 petitioners have filed this writ petition. They all were recruited as Constables in the year 1988-89. On 1.10.1991, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5062 of 2008 (O&M) :{ 2 }: petitioners were discharged from service under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules on the ground that they were unlikely to prove an efficient police officers. The petitioners had allegedly formed a Police Sangthan and had participated in agitation. The petitioners had impugned the order of their discharge by filing Civil Writ Petition No.686 of 1992. This writ petition was clubbed with similar writ petitions and ultimately were disposed of on 13.7.1995. Relying upon the constitutional bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, E.C.I.L., Hyderabad Vs. B.Karunakar, 1994(1) SCT 319 (SC), the petitioners were held not entitled to reinstatement. They were directed to continue to remain under suspension. Respondents were given liberty to hold an enquiry against the petitioners in accordance with law and to pass a fresh order within six months from the date of order passed by this court. The petitioners were further held not entitled to salary or other monetary benefits between the date of their dismissal and the date of this order passed in the writ petition. Treatment of the period of their suspension was also left to be decided by the disciplinary authority at the time of the passing of the fresh order. Pursuant to the above noted directions, enquiry was held and on the basis of the enquiry report, punishing authority awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect to the petitioners on 20.8.1997. It was further ordered that petitioners shall not be paid anything for the period from the date of their discharge to the date they resume their duty and this period shall also not count towards increment, promotion, pension, gratuity and other benefits. The appeal filed by the petitioners against this order CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5062 of 2008 (O&M) :{ 3 }: was partly accepted. The punishment awarded was reduced to stoppage of one increment with permanent effect. Revision filed against this order was rejected on 12.10.1998. The order partly accepting the appeal and the one through which revision petition was dismissed, were challenged by the petitioners by filing a civil suit on 22.3.2004. Some of the Constables, who had been dismissed, had filed LPA No.918 of 1996. The Advocate General, Haryana, while appearing in the said LPA, made a statement that they would be taken back into service with continuity of service subject to the condition that the State would pay 50% of the back wages which would be deposited in their provident fund. Making this is a base, the petitioners filed a review petition before D.G.P., Haryana, who accepted the same and gave the same benefit to the petitioners as was given to the Constables in terms of the statement made in LPA No.918 of 1996. Order in this regard is placed on record as Annexure P-7. The Constables in District Jind, Sirsa, Rohtak and Sonepat were accordingly granted this benefit of back wages and continuity of services. The petitioners were also granted the said benefit. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners asking them to show cause as to why order dated 16.12.2004 passed by D.G.P., allowing the benefit to the petitioners, be not withdrawn on the ground that D.G.P. was not competent to review the order earlier passed by the D.G.P., both being equal in status and authority. Finally, the order dated 16.12.2004 was withdrawn on 28.2.2008 and the 50% wages, which were to be deposited, have not been deposited. The petitioners have CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5062 of 2008 (O&M) :{ 4 }: accordingly filed this writ petition to impugn the said order. Counsel for the petitioners has raised number of pleas to impugn the order passed by the D.G.P. withdrawing the benefit granted to the petitioners. The counsel would first submit that this action is contemptuous in nature as the pleader representing the State of Haryana had made a statement in the Court of Addl.District Judge, Chandigarh to the effect that relief given by D.G.P. is being granted to the petitioners and accordingly the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order passed by civil court was withdrawn. The counsel would then contend that this statement would bind the State from reconsidering and reviewing the order and, thus, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside on this ground. Counsel would also submit that settled rights of the parties cannot be reopened and in support relies upon S.R.Bhagwat Vs. The State of Mysore, 1995(4) SCT 601 and Sanjay Gulati Vs. State of Haryana, 2002(2) SCT 331. He would also term the order to be discriminatory inasmuch as that similarly situated employees in the Districts Jind, Sirsa, Rohtak and Sonepat have been allowed this benefit. The petitioners would also invoke the doctrine of estoppel and would contend that having granted the benefit, the State is estopped in law from withdrawing the same. The State would seriously contest the claim made in the writ petition. By making reference to the order passed by Single Judge of this court, the State counsel contends that the petitioners were not held entitled to any monetary benefits. It is also disclosed that the petitioners were dealt with departmentally and having been found guilty of the charges levelled against them, were awarded the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5062 of 2008 (O&M) :{ 5 }: punishment as noted above. Thereafter, mention is made to the dismissal of the appeal and the revision filed by the petitioners and to an order through which benefit of 50% back wages was granted after reviewing the earlier order as per the judgment in LPA No.918 of 1996. It is stated that the then D.G.P. was not competent to review the matter once the earlier revision was considered and rejected by the D.G.P., both being equal in rank, status and authority. It is stated that the judgment passed in the LPA was not applicable to the case of the petitioners. The matter was accordingly referred to the State Government for taking necessary action. The Government had then decided to withdraw the undue benefit of 50% back wages given to the petitioners. It is stated that it has been decided to withdraw the benefit which was given to the Constables of Districts Jind, Sirsa, Rohtak and Sonepat. Prayer accordingly is made for dismissing the writ petition. In this regard, affidavit in the form of additional reply has also been placed on record. The primary grievance raised by the petitioners appear to be on the basis of the statement made by the Government counsel during the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioners against the dismissal of their civil suit was withdrawn. No doubt, it was stated that relief claimed in the appeal was being granted to the petitioners and accordingly the appeal was withdrawn. However, it can not be a case where Government counsel or anyone is seen going back from the statement or a stand which was taken before the Appellate Court. The statement when taken was correct but the basis of that statement has subsequently been reviewed. It is the stand of the State that D.G.P had no power to review the earlier decision and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5062 of 2008 (O&M) :{ 6 }: accordingly that decision on the basis of which the statement was made, has been withdrawn. This has been uniformly withdrawn in respect of all the Constables. The submission that the Constables belonging to the Districts of Jind, Sirsa, Rohtak and Sonepat have been granted this benefit, leading to discrimination would also now not arise as Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra has come on an affidavit before this Court to say that the relief granted to the Constables of the said Districts regarding 50% of back wages is also being withdrawn. The counsel may be justified in urging that the settled rights of the parties should not be re-opened but it is not a case where this principle would strictly get attracted. Here a decision in principle has been taken to view the issue of powers of D.G.P. to review the earlier order passed by his predecessor. There being no challenge made on this aspect in the present writ petition, this Court may not be required to go into this aspect. Suffice it to say, that it is not a case where settled rights of any individual are being unsettled or re-opened. It is a decision taken in principle, which is having the effect on the entirety of the case and, thus, can not be viewed in the context as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners, however, is justified in saying that because of the stand taken by the State, the petitioners were put to prejudice and their right to pursue their appeal would stand defeated because of the same. To that an extent, the petitioners may be required to be put in the same position, as they were, when this statement was made before the lower Appellate Court on the basis of which they withdrew their appeals pending CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5062 of 2008 (O&M) :{ 7 }: before the said Court. The petitioners would be at liberty to get their appeals revived by moving an application in this regard before the Court of competent jurisdiction where the appeal was pending and was got dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of the statement made by the State counsel. If such an application is moved before the Court, the said appeals would be revived and taken up for hearing for deciding on merits by putting the State counsel to notice in this regard. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. October 27, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE