IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH 208 CWP-16410-2017 Date of Decision: 14.07.2026 SATBIR SINGH ... Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY. **** Present: Ms. Parbeen Kumar Dharwal, Advocate for Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Kumar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. Prayer made in the present petition is for directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as Constable-Wireless Operator from 29.01.1991, the date when other employees were converted and grant all consequential benefits arising therefrom. 2. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the claim as raised hereinabove, by referring to the cases of similarly circumstanced employees. 3. Learned State counsel however refers to the written statement dated 17.01.2019 and states that his claim is not at par with the said employees, as he could not pass his basic training course due to absence. 4. Heard. 5. It would be apposite to refer to paragraph No.11 of the afore RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.07.15 17:41 I am the author of this document CWP-16410-2017 -2- written statement, which reads thus: “11. That in reply of para 11 of the petition it is submitted that the petitioner was rightly dismissed from service under rule 12.21 of PPR 1934 vide order dated 20.09.1991. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not report at his Training Centre despite issuance of repeated reminders. Petitioner is self responsible for remaining out of service due to his act and conduct. The petitioner is not entitled for considering his date of conversion as Constable Wireless Operator w.e.f. 29.11.1991.In this regard it is submitted that the petitioner was enlisted as Constable messenger on 24.01.1991 and was converted as Wireless Operator w.e.f. 23.06.2004. The petitioner made himself eligible to be considered as Wireless Operator after passing the conversion test on 23.06.2004. Due to the facts mentioned above, the petitioner cannot be considered as wireless operator w.e.f. November 1991 without passing conversion test from Constable Messenger to Constable Wireless Operator. It is further added that CWP No. 15265 of 1992 was disposed of in terms of Sunil Kumar's case whereas the facts of CWP No. 13043 of 1992 titled as Sunil Kumar were totally different from the facts of the petitioner in CWP No.15265 of 1992. These facts were not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court either by the Ld. State Counsel or by the petitioner's counsel. Had it been so, the writ petition would have been dismissed on merits. It is further submitted that judgments attached with the present writ petition as annexure P-6 and P-7 are totally distinguishable from the facts of the present case as the petitioner could not pass his basic training course due to his absence and dismissal from service. It is further submitted that the pay of the petitioner was not fixed in the technical pay scale as he was already getting more pay on 23.06.2004 from technical pay scale i.e. Rs. 1200/- when he was converted as Wireless Operator.” 6. Further it would also be pertinent to make a reference to para No.2 of the affidavit dated 21.01.2023, as also the para of even number of the one dated 20.07.2023, both filed by Superintendent of Police, Telecommunication, Haryana, Panchkula, which respectively read thus: “2. That in compliance of the orders of Hon'ble Court's order dated 22.03.2023, it is submitted that Ct./Messenger Harpal Singh No. 547/C now retired EȘI RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.07.15 17:41 I am the author of this document CWP-16410-2017 -3- was appointed on (dated 05.08.1981. He was converted from Constable Messenger to Constable RT/Operator after passing trade conversation test vide order No. 12339-57 dated 18.08.1988. He qualified trade conversion test after 7 years and 13 days. After passing conversation test he was deputed for Basic RT Course in the year 1989 batch No. 1 held from 25.01.1989 to 08.04.1989. He could not qualify the Basic RT Course and declared failed in reading/sending of wireless message. Resultantly his trade was not converted. He remained messenger vide order of the then Superintendent of Police, Telecommunication No. 11334-41 dated 23.05.1989. He again reappeared in Batch No. 10 at his own request held from 05.08.1991 to 09.11.1991. He passed the Basic Radio Telephony course on 29.11.1991 vide order No. 42141-47 dated 03.12.1991. The second official, ESI Ramesh Chander No. 733/C was appointed as Constable Wireless Operator on 31.08.1988 He was deputed for Basic Radio Telephony Course, Batch No. 1 held from 25.01.1989 to 08.04.1989 at Police Wireless Training Centre, Jind. He failed to qualify the Basic RT Course. Hence, vide order No. 11334-41 dated 23.05.1989, he was converted from Constable Operator to Constable Messenger. He re-appeared in failed subject i.e. Reading and Sending in Batch No. 10 vide order No. 42141-47 dated 03.12.1991 and converted as Constable Operator w.e.f. 29.11.1991. Hence the service of Constable Operator Ramesh Chander 733/C on that day is 3 years and 3 months and 2 days. Result of Batch No.1 and Batch No. 10 is attached as Annexure R-5 and R-6.” XXX XXX XXX “2. That ASI Ramesh Chander 733/C and ESI Harpal Singh No. 547/C qualified their basic R/T course in second attempt in accordance with order dated 20.04.1989. Whenever any candidate fails in any course in the particular subject, he is allowed to reappear in the particular subject in which he is failed. He can reappear after 6 months (from the date of examination in which he was failed) order dated 20.04.1989 is annexed as Annexure R-7. ESI Ramesh Chander No. 733/C reappeared in unqualified subject and qualified the said test i.e. reading and sending in batch No. 10 as Annexure R-6 and converted as Constable Messenger to Constable Operator w.e.f. 29.11.1991. Hence, the service of Constable Ramesh Chander No.733/C on that day was three years, three months and two days. At this stage Standing Order No. 62/1995 did not exist at that time.” 7. It is evident that these facts have not been rebutted in the short RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.07.15 17:41 I am the author of this document CWP-16410-2017 -4- rejoinder filed to the main reply, however there is no counter made to the statements made in the additional affidavits filed, in view of which, learned counsel for the petitioner, despite best efforts, was unable to persuade this Court for issuance of direction as prayed for. 8. In light of the stand taken by the respondent, the present petition is disposed of. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JULY 14, 2026. JUDGE Rajender Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.07.15 17:41 I am the author of this document