` CWP-10920-1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 101 CWP-10920-1999 Date of Decision: 11.08.2025 Inspector Karan Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Dhananjay Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of order dated 14.10.1991 (Annexure P-1) as well as Annexures P-3 to P-8 whereby private respondents have been granted seniority over them. 2. The private respondents worked with Punjab Police from 1961 to 1967. Their posts were abolished and they were asked to join Border Security Force, however, they refused to join. The State Government relieved them. In 1966, the State of Haryana came into existence. The State of Haryana permitted them to join Haryana Police Force in 1968. They claimed that their past service rendered with Punjab Police should be counted for pension, seniority and other service benefits. They preferred writ petitions before this Court which were allowed. The matter reached to Hon’ble Supreme Court which remanded the matter back to this Court with MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.11 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. ` CWP-10920-1999 -2- a direction for impleading affected persons as party. This Court vide order dated 08.07.1997 finally disposed of CWP No.9603 of 1994 vide order dated 08.07.1997 which reads as under: - “Before parting with this order, we may observe that pursuant to the judgment, dated April 27, 1995 the petitioner has been promoted as Inspector w.e.f. April 6, 1991 vide order dated September 13, 1995. This promotion would abide by the final order that may be passed by respondent No.1 now regarding the validity of Annexure P-4. In case the decision is against the petitioner, as a necessary consequence he shall stand reverted and the case of the other seniors will be considered for promotion in accordance with law. No further promotion be done till the matter is decided afresh by respondent No.1.” 3. The petitioners submitted detailed representation narrating the background. Respondent No.2 passed impugned order whereby private respondents were granted seniority and promotion. 4. The petitioners are disputing seniority and promotion of private respondents. The private respondents were promoted more than three decades back. The respondent as per directions of this Court counted past service of private respondents for the purpose of seniority and promotion. 5. Undisputedly, the private respondents have rendered service with Punjab Police from 1961 to 1967. There was a small break in their service but not because of their fault. They were regular employees. The petitioners as well as private respondents have already retired. It would not be in the interest of justice and fitness of things to disturb promotion granted to private respondents three decades back. MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.11 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. ` CWP-10920-1999 -3- 6. In the backdrop, this Court is of the considered opinion that present petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 11.08.2025 Mohit Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.11 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.