Jai Kishan & ORS. v. State Of Hry. & ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** 500-1 CWP-4633-2006 Date of Decision: 08.09.2025 JAI KISHAN & ORS.

...Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

...Respondents

And Sr.

No.

Case No.

Petitioner(s) Respondent(s) 2.

CWP-16160-2006 Mukesh Kumar State of Haryana and Others 3.

CWP-16168-2006 Ram Phal and Anr. State of Haryana and Others CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate with Mr. Shivam Malik, Advocate and Mr. Shubham Malik, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Suneel Ranga, DAG Haryana *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP-4633-2006.

2.

The petitioners through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of order dated 08.02.2006 (Annexure P-6) to the extent promotion has been granted to respondent No.6. They are further seeking direction to DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.09.08 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-4633-2006 -2respondent to grant them benefit of ORP Scheme as granted to respondents No.7 to 11.

3.

The petitioners are claiming that respondent No.6 was wrongly granted benefit of ORP because he was not member of police party which arrested accused in FIR No.358 dated 18.11.2005. They are further claiming that proforma respondents No.7 to 11 were granted benefit of promotion under ORP Scheme for act of bravery and courage but petitioners were denied said benefit though they had played same role.

4.

As per ORP Scheme, the petitioners could be granted ad hoc promotion without financial benefit. There was no provision of regular promotion. The petitioners are claiming benefit on the basis of an act of bravery committed in November' 2005. Period of almost two decades has passed away and petitioners as well as respondents might have retired.

5.

In the above premise, no further order, at this stage, is warranted.

6.

Disposed of.

7.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 08.09.2025 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.09.08 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document