Kamaljeet Singh vs Union Of India And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 9419 P&H

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084466




CWP-14495-2021                   -1-                 2023:PHHC:084466


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

240                              CWP-14495-2021
                                 Date of Decision : 05.07.2023

Kamaljeet Singh                                             ......... Petitioner
                                       Versus
Union of India and others                                   ......... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :   Mr.J.S.Mahal, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate
            for the respondents-UOI.

            ****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is seeking directions to respondents to consider name

of the petitioner for promotion from Constable General Duty to Head

Constable General Duty.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the

petitioner is working with respondent-department as Constable General

Duty since 1985. The petitioner has not been granted promotion only on

the ground that he is patient of HIV+. As per Human Immunodeficiency

Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and

Control) Act, 2017 (for short, '2017 Act'), the respondent cannot make

discrimination on the ground that the petitioner is a HIV+ person. In

support of his contention, he relied upon judgment of this Court in

Bishamber Dutt vs. Union of India and others, 2010(2) SCT 621 wherein

it has been held that benefit of promotion cannot be denied merely on the

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084466

CWP-14495-2021 -2- 2023:PHHC:084466

ground that candidate is a HIV+ person. He further submits that the

petitioner, at present, is working and he is medically fit. Had he been unfit,

he must have been discharged.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per

conditions of promotion enumerated in standing order dated 12.03.2015, an

employee must be SHAPE-One whereas the petitioner is SHAPE-2(P),

thus, he cannot be considered for the purpose of promotion.

On being confronted with the aforesaid 2017 Act, as well as

judgment of this Court, learned counsel for the respondents submits that

respondents would pass speaking order after considering statutory

provision as well as judgment of this Court.

The petition stands disposed of with a direction to the

respondents to pass a speaking order qua entitlement of the petitioner to

promotion. The competent authority shall pass order after considering 2017

Act as well as afore-stated judgment of this Court and grant opportunity of

personal hearing to the petitioner. The needful shall be done within 06

weeks from today.

                                               ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
                                                     JUDGE
05.07.2023
anju

              Whether speaking/reasoned          Yes/No
                  Whether Reportable             Yes/No




                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084466

                                      2 of 2