CWP No. 6829 of 2011. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 6829 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: 20th September, 2011. Sub Inspector Dev Dutt Petitioner through Mr. R.K.Malik Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate. Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. B.S.Chahal,DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 19.05.2009 [Annexure P-9] and the report dated 20.03.2011 [Annexure P-11] whereby his claim for promotion has been rejected. [2]. The petitioner was recruited as an Assistant Sub Inspector in Punjab Police on 28.08.1992 and posted in the Punjab Armed Police at Jalandhar (PAP). The petitioner was then transferred to District police in the year 1996 and was promoted as Sub Inspector. The petitioner sought his promotion in the rank of Sub Inspector with effect from the date persons junior to him in the cadre of Assistant Sub Inspectors in PAP were promoted. The petitioner approached this Court in CWP No. 4162 of 2009 for the afore-stated relief, which was disposed of on 18.03.2009 with a direction to decide his claim within three months. The respondents turned down the petitioner's claim vide order dated 19.05.2009 [Annexure P-9] after CWP No. 6829 of 2011. ::-2-:: observing that Punjab Armed Police (PAP) is a `separate cadre' and the petitioner after his transfer to the `District Police Cadre' was left with no lien in PAP cadre. The judgment of the Civil Court in SI Shakattar Singh's case which was upheld by this Court in RSA No. 2435 of 2004, holidng that there were no such separate cadres, was also not followed on the pretext that it was a judgment in personam and could not be implemented like a judgment in rem. The said decision was again challenge by the petitioner before this Court and his claim was referred to the Officers' Committee constituted vide order dated 04.03.2011 passed by this Court in Ranjit Singh & Ors. V State of Punjab & Ors., CWP No. 566 of 2010. The Officers' Committee vide its recommendations dated 20.03.2011 [Annexure P- 11] has also turned down the petitioner's case after observing as follows:- “6. The officers Committee has examined the issue whether PAP can be treated as integral part of the General Police District in terms of Rule 1.3 of the Punjab Police Rules or is to be treated as a separate cadre. No doubt, the ratio of most judgments including that of State of Punjab vs SI Sakattar Singh, RSA No. 2435 of 2004 have held that since there is no mention of Punjab Armed Police as a separate cadre any where in Police Rules, therefore, it has to be treated as a part of the General District Police. 7. With utmost respect to the view expressed in the judgments till date, this Committee would like to place on record the nature and functions of the Punjab Armed Police vis-a-vis the General Police District to bring out difference between the two. For this purpose, the recommendations made in Gurbinder Singh and Manjit Singh cases [copy Annexed A-1 and A-II], this case is CWP No. 6829 of 2011. ::-3-:: also disposed of in the same terms, as per recommendations made therein. Recommendations of the Committee In view of the detailed reasons given in Gurbinder Singh and Manjit Singh cases [Annexures A-1 and A-II], the Committee is of the considered view that the petitioners are not entitled for seniority and promotion at par with PAP officials. However, their seniority would be determined along with seniority of all others as per recommendations made in this and other cases. Sd/- Arpit Shukla, IPS, DIG/Admn. Sd/- Anmol Rattan Singh, Addl. AG Sd/- S.S.Chauhan, IPS, IGP/Hqr”. (emphasis applied) [3]. The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. [4]. Reply/affidavit filed by the respondents reiterates the reason(s) assigned by the Officers' Committee to reject the petitioner's claim. [5]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner, soon after his direct recruitment as Assistant Sub Inspector in 1992, was allocated to the alleged `PAP cadre' and if so whether his subsequent shifting to the District Police tantamounts to change of cadre? The answer to the question posed herein above firstly depends upon the fact situation as to whether `PAP' and `District Police' actually constitute two separate cadres? It may be seen from the above reproduced proceedings of the Officers' Committee that notwithstanding the judicial verdict to the effect that the police officers constitute one cadre only and there is no segregation like `PAP' or `District Police' cadres, the respondents insist upon existence of two separate cadres. CWP No. 6829 of 2011. ::-4-:: [6] The aforesaid controversy, however, need not be gone into in the present case. The petitioner's claim is only to the effect that his juniors in the `PAP cadre' have been promoted over and above him, ignoring his claim. Assuming the PAP a separate cadre as claimed by the respondents, in my considered view, mere transfer of the petitioner to the District Police could not and did not result into termination of his parent lien in `PAP cadre' as no such decision was ever taken or conveyed to the petitioner. The transfer or posting from `PAP cadre' to `District Police' is only an incidence of service. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner ever sought the change of his cadre by losing the seniority in his parent cadre. A member of the police force can be asked to serve anywhere which per-se cannot alter the conditions of his service. In other words, if there were a PAP cadre, the petitioner continued to maintain his lien in the said cadre. The petitioner is, thus, entitled to be considered for promotion and/or any other service benefit[s] as and when conferred on his juniors. [7] As against it, if there were only one police cadre, the posting of the petitioner to the District Police was again an administrative decision and it cannot have any adverse effect on his seniority. The petitioner would, thus, be entitled to seek consideration for promotion from the date his juniors by virtue of joint seniority of the ASIs, have been promoted. The claim of the petitioner for promotion as and when his juniors, whether in the alleged `PAP cadre' or in the `single cadre' were granted such promotion, has to be considered in both the eventualities. [8]. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; CWP No. 6829 of 2011. ::-5-:: the recommendations of the Officers' Committee [Annexure P-11] are quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for promotion as S.I. from the date(s) person(s) junior to him in the alleged PAP cadre have been promoted with all consequential benefits. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Disposed of. Dasti. September 20, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE