IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 1. CWP-5553-2020 Date of decision: 09.07.2026 Robin Masih .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents 2. CWP-5544-2020 Date of decision: 09.07.2026 Michael Masih .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents 3. CWP-5556-2020 Date of decision: 09.07.2026 Sarafdin .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present : Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate for the petitioners in all the petitions. Mr. N.P.S. Hira, DAG, Punjab. **** NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL) 1. This order shall dispose of above-referred three petitions as they arise out of the same impugned order and similar law point is involved in them. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP-5553-2020 titled as 'Robin Masih v. State of Punjab and others'. VINAY 2026.07.09 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-5553-2020 & connected matters -2- 2. The present petition (CWP-5553-2020) has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari, for quashing the order dated 25.01.2020 (Annexure P-6), passed by respondent No.3 in view of Rule 3(1)(a) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975, whereby the petitioner has been prematurely retired from service with effect from 25.01.2020 while casting a stigma upon him. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back in service with effect from 25.01.2020 and further count the period from 25.01.2020 as in-service period, and release all the consequential benefits, along with interest @ 10% per annum. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has referred to the averments made in paras 4 and 5 of the additional affidavit of Vatsala Gupta (IPS), Deputy Commissioner of Police (Headquarters), Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar dated 17.03.2023, which reads as under:- “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 4. That one retired ASI/CR Sarafdin filed a Civil Writ Petition No.5556 of 2020 titled as “Sarafin Vs. State of Punjab and others” before this Hon'ble High Court vide which he challenged the premature retirement order dated 25.01.2020 and the same petition has been clubbed with this Civil Writ Petition 5553 of 2020 titled as 'Robin Masih Vs. State of Punjab and others'. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, retired ASI/CR Sarafdin preferred an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Punjab, Chandigarh against the premature retirement orders. After considering the facts mentioned in appeal and hearing the retired ASI/CR Sarafdin in-person, the Appellate Authority, vide his office order dated 01.11.2022, rejected the orders dated 25.01.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Police Jalandhar, (vide which he was prematurely retired from service) & reinstated the retired ASI/CR back in service. The period, from the date of his premature retirement to till the date of reinstatement in service has been treated as non-duty period. A regular VINAY 2026.07.09 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-5553-2020 & connected matters -3- departmental enquiry has also been ordered to be initiated against him. In the compliance of the order dated 01.11.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority, the formal orders have been issued by the Commissioner of Police Jalandhar, accordingly. 5. That it is submitted that during the pendency of the present writ petition, petitioner Robin Masih also preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Punjab, Chandigarh against the premature retirement order. The petitioner Robin Masih has also been reinstated back in service from the date of premature retirement vide office order no.5528-30/Law & Order(5) dated 19.01.2023 by the Appellate Authority. The period from the date of his premature retirement to till the date of reinstatement in service has been treated as non-duty period. A regular departmental enquiry has also been initiated against him. The formal orders in this regard have been issued by the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar accordingly. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that since all the petitioners have already been reinstated in service as their order(s) of premature retirement have been recalled by the Appellate Authority, therefore, the instant petitions have been rendered infructuous and the petitioners would avail their legal remedies in accordance with law for any surviving grievance. 5. Consequently, all the petitions are disposed of as having been rendered infructuous with aforesaid liberty. 09.07.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR) Vinay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VINAY 2026.07.09 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment