Civil Writ Petition No. 5245 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 5245 of 2009 Date of decision:- 10.08.2011 Shishpal Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. R.R. Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G. Punjab. RITU BAHRI J. Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore adhoc/fortuitous ranks of Head Constables as has been restored to similar officers as per Annexure P-6 to P-10. The petitioners were appointed as Constables and promoted as Head Constables on adhoc/fortuitous basis as per Annexure P-1 for doing good work on anti-terrorist front. Subsequently, they were granted ORP rank as they have served in the rank of Head Constables for number of years (Annexure P-2). Similar officials, who have been reverted, approached the High Court and on dismissal of the writ petitions they went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in SLP No.12979 of 2000 titled 'ASI Dilbag Singh and others versus State of Punjab' directed the State to consider the case of the petitioners and the State Government took a decision to grant one time relaxation for regularization of adhoc promotions to the petitioners. The SLP was disposed of Civil Writ Petition No. 5245 of 2009 -2- in view of the stand taken by the State Government. The petitioners were reverted in the year 1999 on different dates. In compliance of the judgments dated 21.4.1998 and 26.2.1999 passed by the High Court in CWP No.13788 of 1997 and in CWP No.1755 of 1999 they were granted ORP rank. Keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court (Annexure P-3) dated 08.11.2001 similar situated officials of District Amritsar filed CWP No.432 of 2003 titled 'ASI Prabhjit Singh No.118/ASR and others versus State of Punjab and others', which was disposed of on 19.8.2004 directing the respondents to consider the case in the light of the Supreme Court judgment within a period of three months. Similar orders were passed in CWP No.2580 of 2006 (Annexure P-7) titled 'ASI Sukhdev Singh No.1116/ASR and others versus State of Punjab and others' as in CWP No.432 of 2003 (Annexure P- 6) and that was disposed of on 21.2.2006. A contempt petition No.959 of 2006 was filed and the respondents were ordered to restore the rank of the petitioners and COCP was disposed of vide order dated 21.8.2008 (Annexure P-9) and the respondents passed an order (Annexure P-8) on 19.8.2008 restoring the rank. While passing this order reference has been made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Paras Kumar versus Ram Chander and others 2004(2) RSJ 659 decided on 12.4.2004. The case of ASI Dilbag Singh and nine others were reviewed by the Government on 05.9.2007 and they decided to withdraw the benefits of adhoc rank of ASI Dilbag Singh, which were given vide order dated 02.11.2001. The State has filed review application bearing No.258 of 2006 against the order dated 21.2.2006 in CWP No.2580 of 2006 titled 'ASI Sukhdev Singh No.1116/ASR and others versus State of Punjab and others' . In the contempt petition filed , adhoc rank was restored subject to the final decision in the Review Application No.258 of 2006. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to an order (Annexure P-10) passed in CWP No.2580 of 2006 by the office of the Director General of Police, Civil Writ Petition No. 5245 of 2009 -3- Punjab, Chandigarh in which HC Ravinder Kumar and others filed a CWP No.2580 of 2006 in which HC Ravinder Kumar, HC Surjit Singh, HC Chaman Lal and HC Sawinder Singh were restored the rank of Head Constable subject to the final decision of Review Application No.258 of 2006. Petitioners are seeking the similar benefit subject to the final decision in the review application pending in this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully. Counsel for the State has placed reliance of the judgment Paras Kumar versus Ram Chander 2004(2) RSJ 659 to contend that those officials who are promoted within the 10% limit of Rule 13.8(2) could be given regular promotion and those who are beyond the 10% limit of Rule 13.8(2) could not be given ORP promotion which is to encourage and reward the good work of meritorious of good work of the officers. Keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court the case of ASI Dilbag Singh has been reviewed and Government has decided to withdraw the benefit of adhoc rank given to ASI Dilbag Singh and others by passing a formal order dated 29.4.2008. Now since the Government has reviewed its own order following the judgment in Paras Kumar versus Ram Chander (supra) the petitioners cannot claim parity with the other employee, who have been granted this benefit with the rider that their promotions will be subject to the decision in review application bearing No.258 of 2006 against the order dated 21.2.2006 in CWP No.2580 of 2006 titled 'ASI Sukhdev Singh No.1116/ASR and others versus State of Punjab and others'. The writ was allowed in view of the directions passed in SLP No.12979 of 2000 filed by ASI Dilbagh Singh and others. Since in the case of ASI Dilbagh Singh the order has been reviewed and the benefit has been withdrawn, no order in favour of the petitioners can be Civil Writ Petition No. 5245 of 2009 -4- passed at this stage. The writ petition is dismissed. August 10, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE