102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP-19114-2015 Date of Decision: 17.07.2025 Rattan Deep ....Petitioner Vs. State Of Haryana and Others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Dr. S.K. Redhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 18.03.2015 whereby he has been granted promotion as Inspector w.e.f. 13.07.2007 instead of 06.06.2006. 2. The petitioner as per seniority list of Sub Inspectors was senior to S.I. Radhey Sham. He was at Sr. No.10 and Radhey Sham was at Sr. No.11. On account of departmental proceedings pending against petitioner, he was not promoted as Inspector whereas his junior was promoted as Inspector w.e.f. 06.06.2006. He was awarded punishment of warning by Disciplinary Authority, however, DGP exercising power of review under Rule 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as made applicable to the State of Haryana) enhanced awarded punishment. The punishment of warning was substituted by forfeiture of one increment. The petitioner preferred petition before Government and matter came up for consideration before Additional Chief Secretary who vide order dated PRINCE CHAWLA 2025.07.17 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19114-2015 -2- 10.02.2014 set aside order passed by DGP and restored punishment of warning. He further observed that petitioner may be considered for promotion from the date his immediate junior was promoted. The respondent vide order dated 18.03.2015 has accepted claim of the petitioner to the extent that he deserves to be promoted from the date his junior was promoted. The respondent has principally agreed with the claim of petitioner, however, instead of Radhey Sham, S.I. Amarjeet has been considered as immediate junior. 3. As respondent has principally agreed that petitioner should be promoted from the date his junior was promoted, the respondent cannot consider date of an SI who was not immediate junior of petitioner. 4. Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana, during the course of hearing, produced order dated 17.03.2022 passed by a Committee of Officers comprising Inspector General of Police, Rewari, Commissioner of Police, Faridabad and Commissioner of Police, Gurugram. As per said order, the petitioner has been granted List F and promotion as Inspector w.e.f. 01.12.2005 and 09.05.2006 respectively. The said order is not under challenge. The petitioner was claiming promotion w.e.f. 06.06.2006 and as per order dated 17.03.2022 passed by a Committee of Officers, he has been granted promotion w.e.f. 09.05.2006, thus, instant petition has rendered infructuous. 5. In the wake of order dated 17.03.2022 passed by the respondent, the petition stands disposed of with a direction to respondent to reconsider claim of petitioner qua the date of promotion of petitioner as Deputy Superintendent of Police. PRINCE CHAWLA 2025.07.17 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19114-2015 -3- 6. The respondent would be at liberty to consider applicable rules and regulations while considering the claim of petitioner for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police with retrospective effect. Let the needful be done within six months from today. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 17.07.2025 Prince Chawla Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No PRINCE CHAWLA 2025.07.17 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document