IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 730 CWP-10530-2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.07.2026 GURMESH SINGH ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate and Ms. Hemlata, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Kumar, Addl. AG, Haryana. **** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral) 1. Learned counsel submits that petitioner was compulsorily retired vide impugned order dated 01.04.2010, Annexure P2 primarily on basis of adverse remarks recorded in his ACRs from 26.08.1991 to 21.01.1992 and 24.05.1995 to 31.01.1996 which could not be taken into consideration in view of the fact that on 23.12.2002, he was promoted to the post of ASI. In this regard, he relies on judgment in the case of Avtar Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP-6471-1993, decided on 23.03.1995 and ESI Anand Kishore vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP-4680-2010, which was allowed vide judgment dated 02.12.2010, LPA against which was also dismissed, relevant of which reads thus:- “It is seen that the case of the petitioner has not received proper attention. It is not disputed that subsequent to the report and the punishment, the petitioner was considered and promoted to the rank of Sub Inspector. Because of this, the vigor or sting of the adverse entry would ion a way stand wiped out. In this regard, reference can be made to Full bench decision of this Court in Punjab State and others vs. Kulwantbir Singh, 1993(2) SCT 567, where it is observed that adverse remarks prior to promotion to a higher post, particularly where it is based on merit and not seniority alone, would loose their significance and such promotion would take away the sting of the adverse remarks against the Government servant concerned. Even in Baikuntha Nath Das’s case (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has so held that such adverse remarks would loose their sting if an employee is promoted on the basis of merit, selection and not seniority. This aspect apparently has escaped the notice of the respondents altogether.” 2. He, on instructions, thus, prays that his case be reconsidered and decided in light thereof, in a time bound manner. 3. Learned State counsel has no objection to the limited prayer made. ASHOK KUMAR 2026.07.20 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10530-2010 (O&M) -2- 4. In view of the above and without commenting on the merits of the case, this petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider and decide the claim of the petitioner, expeditiously, in accordance with law, taking note of the aforesaid submissions and judgments, uninfluenced by the order impugned herein, which this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not address in a just, fair and reasonable manner. Upon doing so, after notice and hearing offered to him and if found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to the interest of the petitioner, the same shall contain reasons and he shall be free to seek legal redress thereupon. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) 20.07.2026 JUDGE ashok Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No ASHOK KUMAR 2026.07.20 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document