2026:HHC:14250-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.1570 of 2020 Decided on: 29.04.2026 Ramesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms.Yogita Dutta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Vishwa Deep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider/send the nomination under head President Police Medal for Gallantry or Police Medal for Gallantry Award.” 2. The facts which emerge from the pleadings, are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable with the respondents-State on 10.09.1993 and promoted to the post of Head Constable in February, 2004. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector in the year 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:14250-DB 2019. When the petitioner was posted as Head Constable in Police Station, Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, H.P. in the year 2011, an information was received on 20.09.2011 at about 6.20 p.m. that in the third storey of Ajit Niwas Building, a domestic LPG cylinder caught fire. Without wasting any time, the petitioner rushed to the spot, which was surrounded by about 100-200 people and in the house of one Prashant, who is a Zoologist, valuable property, scientific equipments, laptops etc. belonging to the H.P. Power Corporation Ltd. were kept. He swung into action and after about 20 minutes, when all were waiting for it to burst, the petitioner with the help of Dev Raj Sharma, Home Guard lifted the burning cylinder and threw it in the open space. While lifting the cylinder, both the arms of the petitioner got burnt and he remained hospitalized for three months. 3. It is further pleaded that petitioner did the bravery work and due to his exemplary work in saving the lives of about 100 people by putting his own life in danger, his act was appreciated by the locals and the respondents-State. The respondents-State on account of exemplary courage shown by the petitioner, had taken initiative to nominate his name for the Prime Minister’s Award for Excellence in Public 3 2026:HHC:14250-DB Administration in the year 2011-12 and respondent No.3vide letter dated 19.06.2012 had written to all SHOs, I/C PPs, CPs and Guards to send the nomination of such employees, who have got achievements including extraordinary performance in emergent situations like floods, earthquake etc. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Reckong Peo, vide letter dated 20.06.2012 (Annexure P-1) had forwarded the name of the petitioner. Thereafter, vide communication dated 06.04.2013 (Annexure P-2), Incharge of Police Line, Reckong Peo had requested respondent No.3 for ‘Jeevan Raksha Padak’ Series of Award 2013 to be conferred upon the petitioner. On receipt of communication dated 06.04.2013, respondent No.3 had strongly recommended the name of petitioner for ‘Jeevan Raksha Padak’, to respondent No.2 vide letter dated 01.06.2013 (Annexure P-3), who subsequently forwarded the same to respondent No.1, vide letter dated 22.06.2013 (Annexure P-4). However, the name of the petitioner was not considered for out of turn promotion and names of two officials were recommended, vide order dated 07.07.2017 (Annexure P-6). 4. It is also averred that the request/claim of the petitioner for award of ‘Jeevan Raksha Padak’ was turned 4 2026:HHC:14250-DB down vide letter/order dated 06.01.2018 (Annexure P-7), on the plea that respondent No.3 had not recommended his claim for any type of medal and the Vyapar Mandal, Reckong Peo had requested to the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and the Superintendent of Police, Kinnaur to award President Award/Jeevan Raksha Padak to the petitioner in recognition of commendable work done by him. It was also noticed therein that the petitioner was already awarded C.C. Class-III along-with cash reward of Rs.500/- along-with one Dev Raj Sharma on 20.09.2011. Further, the matter has also become time barred as per instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. The recommendation for Life Saving Award should invariably be sent within one year after the date of the relevant act of gallantry, failing which, the same will not be considered. 5. The petitioner has pleaded that his case was recommended immediately and there was no delay, but if any, delay is caused, it is on the part of respondent No.1, who had deliberately delayed, whereas, in the case of other officials, their names were considered even after two years of the act of bravery. Further, the respondents had issued instructions 5 2026:HHC:14250-DB dated 08.11.2018, regarding one rank out of turn promotion to the awardees of the police medals. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the letter/order dated 06.01.2018 (Annexure P- 7) had made request to respondent No.2 for sending his name to the President’s Police Medal, but he did not care to reply. The impugned action of the respondents is unjust, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. The respondents filed reply to the petition and not disputed the fact that the name of petitioner was recommended by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 for ‘Jeevan Raksha Padak’ a series of 2013 Award, vide letter dated 01.06.2013, but respondent No.3 had awarded the petitioner with C.C. Class-III along-with cash reward of Rs.500/- for his act of bravery. The nomination of the petitioner for ‘Jeevan Raksha Padak’ a series of 2013 Award was sent to the Government for taking further action and the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh had taken up the matter with the Director, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110001. It is further averred that no recommendations with regard to (i) President’s Police Medal 6 2026:HHC:14250-DB for Gallantry (ii) Police Medal for Gallantry (iii) President’s Police Medal for Distinguished Service (iv) Police Medal for Meritorious Service; and (v) Prime Ministers Police Medal for Life Saving, have been received and thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. The petitioner filed rejoinder and has placed on record the documents. As per ‘Jeevan Raksha Padak’, the recipients are entitled to a lump-sum monetary allowance of Rs.40,000/-. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 9. It is not in dispute that the claim of the petitioner was forwarded by the State Government to the Director, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110001 on 19.08.2013. Even after filing the reply by the respondents and placing on record the said document as Annexure R-5, the petitioner did not take any step to implead the Director, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110001, as one of the respondents in the petition. The reply by the respondents was filed on 14.10.2020. Not only this, as per directions given by this Court on 24.04.2025, the learned Deputy Advocate 7 2026:HHC:14250-DB General had placed on record instructions dated 08.05.2025, wherein also, the similar stand was taken that the case of the petitioner had been forwarded to the Director, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi- 110001 vide letter dated 19.08.2013. Even thereafter, no steps were taken by the petitioner to implead the said authority as one of the respondents in the writ petition and without the said authority being impleaded in the writ petition, this Court cannot give directions to take action on the said nomination forwarded by the respondents-State. Not only this, a perusal of the prayer made in the writ petition also shows that the petitioner has not questioned rejection of his claim vide letter/order dated 06.01.2018, wherein it was mentioned that the case of the petitioner was examined and he has already been awarded C.C. Class-III along-with cash reward of Rs.500/- along-with one Dev Raj Sharma on 20.09.2011. Further the matter has also become time barred as per instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, which has not been challenged. This Court can only consider the prayers, which have been made in the writ petition and once there is no specific challenge to the said order/letter issued by the 8 2026:HHC:14250-DB competent authority, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that once the petitioner had already made a representation against the rejection of the claim of the petitioner before respondent No.2 for sending his nomination for President’s Medal on 22.03.2019, it is to be presumed that the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order and no specific prayer is required to be made in the writ petition. This Court cannot accept the said contention for the simple reason that the Court is only bound to consider the prayers, which have specifically been made in the writ petition and as already noticed above, no specific prayer has been made by the petitioner to quash the said order. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that since as per ‘Jeevan Raksha Padak’ award, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.40,000/-, he may be awarded that sum. However, the said prayer cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the petitioner has not been awarded the ‘Jeevan Raksha Padak’ and thus, the said prayer cannot be accepted. 9 2026:HHC:14250-DB 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in similar facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.13806 of 2024, titled, Ram Autar Singh Yadav vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others had directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to grant monetary benefit for the act of bravery and thus the petitioner may also be extended the similar benefit. No doubt, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted the relief, as mentioned above, but in that case, the petitioner had laid challenge to the order whereby his claim was rejected. However, in the present case, the petitioner has not laid challenge to the order dated 06.01.2018 (Annexure P- 7), which has been placed on record by the petitioner himself with the writ petition and thus the ratio of law laid down in the said judgment is not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Further, this Court cannot give direction to the Director, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110001, to whom the matter was referred, especially when the petitioner has not impleaded the said respondent in the writ petition. 13. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, 10 2026:HHC:14250-DB there shall be no orders as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 29th April, 2026 Judge (naveen)