Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amritpal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 22 March, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041928
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:041928-DB
(108) LPA-332-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 22.03.2024
Amritpal Singh
......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Saurav Khurana, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
Consideration in the present letters patent appeal is sought of
the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.12.2023 passed in
CWP-27813-2023 'Amritpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab' and others',
wherein the Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
2. The relief sought in the writ petition by the writ petitioner
was for quashing the order dated 07.06.2023 (Annexure P-14) passed by
respondent No.2, whereby the claim of the appellant for the post of ASI
had been rejected. The claim was based on the fact that the appellant had
participated in the terrorist operations and covered by the instructions
dated 29.11.2012 (Annexure P-9) and, therefore, notional promotion was
sought on regular basis instead of local rank ASI in view of the said
instructions and to grant all the consequential benefits.
3. The Learned Single Judge has relied upon the findings as
recorded by the Committee, which were subject matter of challenge, to
come to the conclusion that there was no terrorist attack on the writ
petitioner and his case does not fall under terrorist action category. The
Learned Single Judge perused the FIR in question and was unable to form
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041928
LPA-332-2024 (O&M)
an opinion contrary to the opinion of the Committee, which consisted of
senior police officials. Keeping in view the above, the Court found it
appropriate not to form any opinion contrary to the opinion already formed
by the Committee, in the absence of any concrete evidence.
4. Mr. Rajeshwar Singh has taken us through the paper-book
and to the contents of the FIR in question to submit that while being part
of the police party on 04.07.1986 alongwith one HC Bhim Sain, the
appellant had received gun-shot injuries and the FIR had, accordingly,
been lodged. Reference was also made to the medical examination
(Annexure P-7) done to show the presence of the injuries to submit that it
was a case of fire arm injury and, therefore, benefit should have been
granted.
5. The Learned Single Judge has relied upon the finding of the
Committee, which is under challenge. The Committee had come to the
conclusion that FIR No.68 dated 04.07.1986 was not a case which fell
under the terrorist category and the action of the police did not fall under
the category of terrorist action. FIR No.69 dated 04.07.1986 was a case of
recovery of drugs in the form of poppy husk powder and in such
circumstances while noticing that the co-employee had also not been
granted any additional benefit and he had been only promoted as a local
Head Constable and never promoted to the rank of ASI, the claim had
been rejected.
6. A perusal of the representation moved by the writ petitioner
dated 24.10.2017 (Annexure P-10) would go on to show that some
unidentified persons had opened fire upon police party, in which the writ
petitioner had received bullet injuries and his claim was based on the fact
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041928
LPA-332-2024 (O&M)
that HC Bhim Sain had been promoted to the post of ASI, who had also
received bullet injuries and, thus, the parity was sought.
7. This aspect has been duly dealt with by the Committee, which
came to the conclusion that firstly Bhim Sain had never been promoted to
the post of ASI and had only been promoted to the post of regular HC and,
thus, the claim of the petitioner on the ground of parity had also been
rejected. The Committee had, thus, come to the conclusion that the case of
the writ petitioner did not fall under the category of terrorist action. The
claim as such had been rightly rejected, as the instructions dated
29.11.2012 (Annexure P-9) talk about the troubled days of militancy in
Punjab and of anti-terrorist work done and the benefit has to be given to
the police official who had done outstanding anti-terrorist work.
8. The appellant may have received injuries on account of the
opening up of fire by some miscreants, but once the High Powered
Committee headed by an officer of rank of IGP, Headquarters, has come to
the conclusion that it was not a case of terrorist action, the reasoning
recorded by the Learned Single Judge not to take a contrary view does not
suffer from any infirmity or irregularity.
9. Resultantly, there is no merit in the present letters patent
appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
22.03.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : √Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes √No
3 of 3
