IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 204 CWP-14235-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 17.07.2026 Joginder Singh and another … PeƟƟoners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CWP-23920-2022 (O&M) Yogeshwar Dayal and others … PeƟƟoners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CWP-10917-2022 (O&M) SaƟsh Kumar and another … PeƟƟoners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. S. K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the peƟƟoners. Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, DAG, Haryana. ***** NIDHI GUPTA, J . CWP-14235-2021 Present Civil Writ PeƟƟon under ArƟcles 226/227 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India has been filed by the peƟƟoner for issuance of a writ in the nature of cerƟorari for quashing the impugned order dated 08.02.2021 (Annexure P-12), whereby the peƟƟoners have been denied the benefit of previous service rendered from 1995 to 2001 in the State Police Force by NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-14235-2021 (O&M) - 2 - ignoring the order dated 08.09.2020 (Annexure P-11) and the similar benefits granted vide orders dated 22.07.2016 and 06.12.2016 (Annexures P-4 & P-5); and/or further direcƟng the respondents to grant the benefit of deemed date of appointment, seniority, qualifying service, increment of pay, arrears of pay and all consequenƟal benefits by counƟng the service rendered by the peƟƟoners from 1995 to 2001 in the State Police Force, in terms of order dated 08.09.2020 (Annexure P-11). CWP- 23920-2022 Present Civil Writ PeƟƟon under ArƟcles 226/227 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India has been filed by the peƟƟoner for issuance of a writ in the nature of CerƟorari for quashing the impugned order/reply dated 05.11.2020 (Annexure P-6), passed by respondent No.4 whereby the peƟƟoners' request for conƟnuity of service and consequenƟal benefits, including counƟng of their previous service rendered from July 1995 to January 2001, has been rejected; and to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus direcƟng the respondents to count the peƟƟoners' previous service from July 1995 to January 2001 for all service benefits and experience, and to release the consequenƟal arrears and other admissible benefits. CWP- 10917-2022 Present Civil Writ PeƟƟon under ArƟcles 226/227 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India has been filed by the peƟƟoners for issuance of a writ in the nature of CerƟorari for quashing the impugned acƟon of the respondents authoriƟes denying the peƟƟoners the benefit of previous service rendered by him from 1995 to 2001 in State Police Force, contrary to the orders dated NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-14235-2021 (O&M) - 3 - 08.09.2020 (Annexure P-9); 22.07.2016 and 06.12.2016 (Annexures P-4 & P-5) and/or further direcƟng the respondents to count the peƟƟoners' service from 1995 to 2001 for deemed date of appointment, seniority, qualifying service, increments, pay fixaƟon, arrears of pay and all consequenƟal service benefits. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parƟes, all of the above said 3 writ peƟƟons are being disposed of by this common order as the facts and issues involved in all the writ peƟƟons are idenƟcal; peƟƟoners in all the 3 writ peƟƟons are idenƟcally placed; and the respondents in all the writ peƟƟons are same. For the sake of convenience, facts are being drawn from CWP-14235- 2021. 3. It is inter alia submiƩed by ld. counsel for the peƟƟoners that pursuant to selecƟon, the peƟƟoners were appointed as Constable in the Haryana Police on regular basis in August 1995. The selecƟon of the peƟƟoners as well as other similar appointees was challenged by the unselected candidates before this Court by way of CWP-13942 of 1995, Ɵtled as Balbir Singh versus State of Haryana and others. The said writ peƟƟon was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 16.02.1996, thereby seƫng aside the selecƟon. Aggrieved thereof, the peƟƟoners and other similarly situated persons had preferred Civil Appeal No.15034-36 of 1996, Ɵtled as Suresh Kumar versus State of Haryana and others, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Vide judgment dated 17.01.2001 (Annexure P-1), the said Civil Appeals/SLPs were dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thereby upholding the quashing of the peƟƟoners’ selecƟon; and further direcƟng as follows: NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-14235-2021 (O&M) - 4 - “1. These 1600 vacancies in respect of which the process of selecƟon has already been made and the same has been quashed by the High Court should be readverƟsed in accordance with the amended Rules of 1998 and this adverƟsement must be made within 2 weeks from today. 2. Those of the selectees, who are appointed on the basis of the said selecƟon and are conƟnuing Ɵll date, shall be permiƩed to conƟnue unƟl the fresh selecƟon is made. 3. These selected, whose selecƟon has been set aside, would be enƟtled to appear at the fresh selecƟon pursuant to the adverƟsement going to be issued in view of our direcƟon made earlier by relaxaƟon of the age. 4. In the maƩer of selecƟon the selecƟng authority would obviously give some preference to the experience gained by these selectees, who have been appointed and are conƟnuing in service. 5. Those, who have been selected but not appointed would also be eligible to appear in the selecƟon process going to commence pursuant to the fresh adverƟsement and their case would also be considered by making relaxaƟon of age, though they cannot claim any preference since they do not possess any experience. 6. Some of the selected, who were selected on account of voluntary reƟrement of the exisƟng police personnel, their selecƟon also has been quashed by the learned Judge of the High Court and their parents have been brought into service by virtue of the order of the High Court. Those persons would also be eligible to make applicaƟon and parƟcipate pursuant to the fresh adverƟsement and they will have to compete as fresh recruits and not as defendants of the voluntary reƟrees since there is no provision in the Recruitment Rules of 1998 for making such appointment on the basis of the voluntary reƟrement of the exisƟng police personnel. In their case also the age relaxaƟon should apply. The enƟre process of selecƟon be concluded within 6 months from today. We make it clear that those of the selectees, whose appointments NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-14235-2021 (O&M) - 5 - have been quashed and have been permiƩed to conƟnue because of the interim order of this Court, would be permiƩed to conƟnue Ɵll the selecƟon process is over pursuant to our aforesaid direcƟon and in the event they fail to get themselves selected they will make way for the fresh selectees.” 4. Ld. counsel submits that in compliance of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the peƟƟoners and other similarly selected employees were issued orders dispensing with their services with immediate effect. By way of example, one such order dated 09.08.2001 passed in case of peƟƟoner No.1 is Annexure P-2. 5. In further compliance of the observaƟons of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondent-Police Department had issued adverƟsement in the year 2001 itself, vide adverƟsement dated 18.03.2001 for male candidates and adverƟsement dated 10.04.2001 for female candidates, sƟpulaƟng therein that special weightage of five marks shall be given on account of experience of five years in the State Police Force (hereinaŌer ‘SPF’). 6. Learned counsel submits that certain persons who had parƟcipated in the selecƟon process of 2001 and had been kept in the waiƟng list, and had not been awarded five marks for the five-year experience in Police Service, had preferred CWP-20121-2003, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 08.03.2004 with a direcƟon to the respondents to award five addiƟonal marks to the peƟƟoners therein; in compliance of which the peƟƟoners therein were granted appointment on 24.03.2004. 7. ThereaŌer, as the peƟƟoner therein had been granted seniority from the date when he was taken in service, he had preferred CWP-1874-2007 NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-14235-2021 (O&M) - 6 - seeking deemed date of appointment and to maintain the seniority. Vide order dated 15.02.2008 (Annexure P-3), the said writ peƟƟon was also allowed, direcƟng the respondents to give the peƟƟoner therein deemed date of appointment, as well as issued direcƟons for grant of noƟonal benefits to peƟƟoners therein. 8. That some of the candidates/employees who were subsequently selected in the police department, also approached the respondent department seeking the benefit of past service rendered in the police department i.e. from 1995 to 2001. The request/representaƟon of those employees who have been subsequently appointed in the police department, was considered and the Director-General of Police, Haryana passed an order dated 22.07.2016 (Annexure P-4) holding such employees enƟtled for all the benefits of previous service which they have rendered in police Department from 1995 to 2001. 9. Ld. Counsel submits that the perusal of order Annexure P-4, passed by the DGP Haryana, makes it clear that all the aspects of the case have been considered and it is observed that the applicants have rendered services to Haryana Police conƟnuously and they deserve all the benefits accruing to them by virtue of that service as per direcƟons of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Similarly, 14 other similarly situated employees were also held enƟtled for all the benefits of their previous service which was rendered by them from 1995 to 2001, while accepƟng their representaƟons by the DGP Haryana, vide order dated 06.12.2016 (Annexure P-5). 10. Ld. counsel submits that thereaŌer, the respondent authoriƟes again issued an adverƟsement in the year 2012 (Annexure P-6) for recruitment NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-14235-2021 (O&M) - 7 - of 1091 posts of Warder with similar qualificaƟon, i.e. five years experience in the State Police Force in the year 2012, and last date for applicaƟons was 30.8.2012. Pursuant thereto, peƟƟoners were even issued cerƟficates by the respondent department menƟoning their respecƟve constabulary numbers which had been alloƩed to the peƟƟoners when they were appointed as Constable. 11. It is submiƩed that in the said cerƟficate issued to peƟƟoner No.1 (Annexure P-7), it is specifically menƟoned that "this cerƟficate is being issued to him for applying for the post of Jail Warder only". ConsequenƟally, peƟƟoners had applied and were selected and appointed on post of Jail Warder vide appointment leƩers dated 24.04.2013, issued in case of peƟƟoner No 1 (Annexure P-8). 12. Learned counsel submits that the peƟƟoners have performed their duƟes with utmost care and cauƟon to the complete saƟsfacƟon of the respondent Department. No complaint has been ever filed against the peƟƟoners. The peƟƟoners aŌer coming to know that similarly situated employees whose services had been dispensed with in compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, those employees have been granted the benefit of earlier service rendered by them from the year 1995 to 2001 in the Police Department for all intents and purposes, including deemed date of appointment and for grant of monetary benefits. Accordingly, peƟƟoners had presented a representaƟon dated 10.12.2017 (Annexure P-9), seeking similar relief. When no acƟon was taken thereupon by the respondents, peƟƟoners had preferred CWP- 8798-2018, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 06.04.2018 NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-14235-2021 (O&M) - 8 - (Annexure P-10), direcƟng the respondents to consider the representaƟon of the peƟƟoners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within 2 months. 13. However, vide impugned order dated 08.2.2021 (Annexure P-12) representaƟon of the peƟƟoners has been rejected on the ground that peƟƟoners have accepted the appointment aŌer a gap of 12 years. It is submiƩed that nothing has been stated in the impugned order with regard to other similarly situated employees who have been granted benefit as demonstrated above. 14. Learned counsel contends that clearly therefore, the impugned order is discriminatory, unfair, illegal, and arbitrary, being violaƟve of ArƟcles 14 and 16 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India, and is therefore, liable to be set aside. It is submiƩed that the respondent authoriƟes have failed to consider that services of the peƟƟoners were dispensed with in the year 2001 without any misconduct or default on their part. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while passing the judgment (Annexure P-1) has specifically observed regarding rehabilitaƟon of those government employees whose services had been dispensed with and direcƟons had been issued to the respondents to issue adverƟsement while making specific observaƟons for grant of 5 marks on account of experience of 5 years in the State Police Force. It is contended that the respondent authority had failed to consider these facts while passing the impugned order. 15. The respondent authoriƟes have also failed to consider that some of the employees have been re-appointed without any gap and some have been appointed subsequently. It is submiƩed that even in the present adverƟsement (Annexure P-6), it has been specifically provided to grant five marks for NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-14235-2021 (O&M) - 9 - experience of five years in State Police Force. As such, peƟƟoners are enƟtled to the benefit of service for the year from the year 1995 to 2001. In not granƟng the said benefit to the peƟƟoners, respondents have acted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner which cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is prayed to that the impugned order dated 8.2.2021 rejecƟng the case of the peƟƟoners be set aside; and the benefit of service rendered by the peƟƟoners as constable from 1995 to 2001 be granted along with all consequenƟal benefits. 16. Per contra ld. State counsel has vehemently opposed submissions of the peƟƟoner and submits that the peƟƟoners are not enƟtled to benefit of service rendered from 1995 to 2001 as the said benefit was made admissible only to those persons who had applied immediately upon passing of judgment dated 17.01.2001 (Annexure P-1), of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The peƟƟoners have applied and been selected in an adverƟsement issued 11 years thereaŌer on 31.07.2012. It was an open adverƟsement where candidates of other states had also applied. ContenƟon of the peƟƟoners that adverƟsement (Annexure P- 6) itself contains a condiƟon that benefit of five years service shall be accorded, is based on a misreading of the adverƟsement. Accordingly, prays that the present writ peƟƟon be dismissed. 17. No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parƟes. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the peƟƟoners. 18. The factual matrix has already been enumerated hereinabove. It is not disputed that in compliance of the judgment dated 17.01.2001 (Annexure P- 1), passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondent-Department had NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-14235-2021 (O&M) - 10 - adverƟsed 685 posts of constables in Haryana Police in the year 2001 itself. AdmiƩedly, peƟƟoners were not selected in the said recruitment process of 2001. ConsequenƟally, services of the peƟƟoners were dispensed with with effect from 09.08.2001 by the competent authority. 19. It is not disputed that original appointees of the 1995 selecƟon who had parƟcipated in the fresh selecƟon process of constables conducted in the year 2001 in compliance of the order dated 17.01.2001, had sought benefit of five years service rendered by them from 1995 to 2001; and the seniority; which was granted to them, holding them enƟtled for all benefits of previous service rendered by them from 1995 to 2001. 20. Case of the peƟƟoners is placed on a different fooƟng inasmuch as admiƩedly, peƟƟoners had remained unsuccessful in the fresh selecƟon process of 2001 for the post of constable. As a result, their services were dispensed with effect from 09.08.2001. In another selecƟon conducted 11 years thereaŌer for the post of Warden vide present adverƟsement dated 31.07.2012 (Annexure P- 6), peƟƟoners are claiming benefit of service rendered from 1995 to 2001. Needless to say, benefit of the said Service could have been awarded only to those candidates who had been re-selected. Therefore, having not been selected in the selecƟon process of 2001 aŌer judgment dated 17.01.2001, peƟƟoners cannot now claim the benefit of service from 1995 to 2001 in the present recruitment process. Moreover, present recruitment was not only for those constables whose services had been terminated with effect from 09.08.2001 in compliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court order. AdmiƩedly, it NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-14235-2021 (O&M) - 11 - was an open adverƟsement in which candidates from other states had also applied, some of whom were selected to post of Jail Warder. 21. It is further clarified that in the 2001 recruitment conducted by the respondents aŌer judgment dated 17.01.2001, peƟƟoners were not selected to the post of Constable, resultantly their services had been terminated with effect from 09.08.2001. On the other hand, some of the appointed employees who had been selected in the year 1995 as Constable and were subsequently re- selected to post of Constable again in the year 2001 without any gap in service, as per direcƟon of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, were granted benefit of service from 1995 to 2001 upon representaƟon made by them to the concerned authority. Thus, it is undisputed that benefit of previous service has been allowed only to those employees who have rendered conƟnuous service in the Haryana Police from 1995 to 2001 and onwards, i.e. aŌer re-selecƟon in the year 2001 to the post of Constable in Haryana Police. 22. Clearly therefore, peƟƟoners are not enƟtled for previous service benefits, as previous service benefits was allowed by the respondent Department only to those employees who have rendered conƟnuous service from 1995 to 2001 and onwards, i.e. aŌer re-selecƟon in the year 2001 to the post of Constable in Haryana Police. On the other hand, peƟƟoners have not rendered conƟnuous service; and aŌer terminaƟon of their services with effect from 09.08.2001, they have freshly applied to post of Warder in the Prisons Department aŌer a gap of 11 years. Moreover, upon selecƟon, peƟƟoners have accepted the terms and condiƟons as menƟoned in their leƩer of appointment dated 24.04.2013 and joined the services afresh as Warder in the Prison NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-14235-2021 (O&M) - 12 - Department on iniƟal pay scale as admissible to post of Warder. Clearly, therefore, case of the peƟƟoners is disƟnctly different from that of the persons who have been granted benefit of previous service. 23. The contenƟon of the peƟƟoners that in the present adverƟsement (Annexure P-6) for appointment to post of Warder, qualificaƟon of experience mandated is "five years of experience in the State Police Force" implies that’s service rendered by the peƟƟoners from 1995 to 2001 is to be counted, is uƩerly misconceived. The said contenƟon of the peƟƟoners is based on an overly sympatheƟc reading of the sƟpulaƟon. All that is stated in the adverƟsement is that to be appointed to post of Warder, five years experience in the State Police Force is required. By no stretch of the imaginaƟon, would this imply that service rendered by the peƟƟoners from 1995 to 2001 as constable, shall be counted towards granƟng them seniority etc. in their appointments as Warder. 24. Parity sought to be drawn by the peƟƟoners with the writ peƟƟoners in CWP-20121-2003 and CWP-1874-2007 is misconceived as, the said writ peƟƟoners were borne on the waiƟng list of the 2001 selecƟon; and unlike the peƟƟoners were subsequently appointed; and were therefore granted seniority. Therefore, peƟƟoners cannot be said to be similarly placed as the said constable. 25. Ld. Counsel for the peƟƟoners has also submiƩed that in the judgment dated 17.01.2001 (P-1) in sub-para (4) of Para No.4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:- NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-14235-2021 (O&M) - 13 - “(4) In the maƩer of selecƟon the selecƟng authority would obviously give some preference to the experience gained by these selectees, who have been appointed and are conƟnuing in service.” 26. It has been contended that therefore, benefit of the said service/selecƟon is to be granted to the peƟƟoners also. However, the said contenƟon is based on a misreading of the above observaƟon. Firstly, preference of experience had to be given only to those selectees who were reappointed and were therefore, conƟnuing in Service. It is implicit that the said observaƟon would apply only to the selecƟon process which had to be undertaken by the respondents in pursuance to judgment dated 17.1.2001, which had to be concluded within 6 months. Needless to say, the said benefit cannot be accorded for all Ɵmes thereinaŌer to all recruitment processes undertaken thereaŌer. 27. In view of the above discussion, all three writ peƟƟons stand dismissed. 28. Pending applicaƟon(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 29. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) 17.07.2026 JUDGE Neelam Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh