- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Harminder Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners were members of the police force in the State of Punjab, belonging to various ranks. They were dismissed from service on the ground that they had participated in an agitation which was impermissible under the rules governing discipline in the Punjab police force.
A large number of similarly situated persons filed writ petitions in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. After those writ petitions were dismissed, they preferred appeals by special leave. The Supreme Court examined those matters in Civil Appeals Nos. 3183-3184 of 1983, Sengara Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 4 SCC 225, and rendered its decision on August 2, 1983.
In the present petitions, the respondents sought reconsideration in light of a review petition filed by the State against the Sengara Singh decision; however, it was found that the review petition had already been rejected.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the present petitioners’ dismissal for participation in an impermissible agitation should be decided in the same manner as the petitioners in Sengara Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 4 SCC 225, given that their cases could not be distinguished and the review petition against Sengara Singh had been rejected.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondents' Arguments
- The respondents’ counsel submitted that the State of Punjab had filed a review petition against the decision in Sengara Singh (decided on August 2, 1983).
- On that basis, it was urged that the Court should examine afresh the contentions the State wished to advance in the present petitions.
Petitioners' Arguments
This information was not available in the provided opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sengara Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 4 SCC 225 | The governing decision for similarly situated Punjab police personnel dismissed for participation in an impermissible agitation, including the conditions on which reinstatement was ordered. | The Court noted that the respondents’ counsel could not distinguish the present petitioners’ case from those covered by Sengara Singh, and that the review petition against it had been rejected; therefore, the same result and reinstatement conditions were applied. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court treated Sengara Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 4 SCC 225 as controlling. Although the respondents’ counsel urged the Court to re-examine the issues on the premise that a review petition was pending against Sengara Singh, an inquiry revealed that the review petition had already been rejected.
The Court further recorded that it was not possible for the respondents’ counsel to distinguish the present petitioners from those whose cases had been dealt with in Sengara Singh. As a “necessary corollary,” the Court held that the same outcome must follow in these petitions.
Consequently, the Court directed reinstatement on the same conditions as in the earlier judgment: continuity of service for all purposes; treatment of the period between termination and reinstatement as leave if admissible and available, otherwise as leave without pay; payment of salary only if leave was admissible, but no other back wages.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED / PETITIONS SUCCEED: The State of Punjab was directed to reinstate the petitioners subject to the same conditions applicable to other dismissed Punjab police personnel under the earlier decision.
Direct effect on the parties: The petitioners must be reinstated forthwith; their services are to be treated as continuous; the interregnum is to be adjusted as admissible leave (with salary) or otherwise as leave without pay; no other back wages are payable; and there was no order as to costs.
Broader implications: The order applies the outcome and reinstatement conditions from Sengara Singh to indistinguishable cases; the opinion does not indicate that it sets any new precedent beyond following the earlier ruling.
Order
1. Petitioners in each of these petitions were members of the police force in the State of Punjab belonging to various ranks in the police force. They were dismissed from service on the ground that they had participated in an agitation which was impermissible under the rules governing discipline in the police force of Punjab. Large number of persons similarly situated filed writ petitions in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and after the writ petitions were dismissed, they preferred appeals by special leave. This Court examined that case in Civil Appeals Nos. 3183-3184 of 1983 — Sengara Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 4 SCC 225 — and rendered decision on August 2, 1983.
2. At the hearing of these petitions, Mr P.R Mridul, learned counsel who appeared for the respondents urged that the State of Punjab has filed a review petition against the decision of this Court in Sengara Singh case (1983) 4 SCC 225 rendered on August 2, 1983. It was further submitted that therefore, this Court should examine afresh the contentions which the State of Punjab would like to advance in the present petitions. An enquiry revealed that the review petition has already been rejected. It was not possible for Mr Mridul to distinguish the case of the present petitioners from those whose cases were dealt with in the aforementioned judgment by this Court. As a necessary corollary, the same result must follow. Accordingly, these petitions succeed. The State of Punjab is directed to reinstate the petitioners subject to the same conditions to which the other dismissed personnel of the police force of Punjab were directed to be reinstated forthwith. Their services would be treated as continuous and the period between termination of service and reinstatement shall be treated as if they were on leave, if leave was admissible and available or leave without pay if any other kind of leave is not available. If leave is admissible to them, they should be paid salary but no other back wages are to be paid to them. For all other purposes, their services should be treated as continuous. There will be no orders as to costs of the hearing in this Court.
Alert