Hardeep Singh And ORS. v. State Of Punjab And ORS.

LPA-3022-2025 (O&M)


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH LPA-3022-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.12.2025 Hardeep Singh and others ...Appellants Vs.

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA

Present:

Mr. Dharam Bir Bhargav, Advocate for the appellants.

*** ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL , J.(Oral) CM-7555-LPA-2025 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 60 days in re-filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 60 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Main case The appellants have impugned the order dated 26.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellants seeking direction to the respondents to consider them for the post of Home Guards has been dismissed.

2.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in 1994 the appellants had been employed as Special Police Officers to help combat militancy in Punjab. They had discharged their duties to the best of their ability VANITA 2025.12.24 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment

LPA-3022-2025 (O&M)

and the respondents ought to have considered them for employment as Home Guards.

3.

Heard.

4.

The appellants are stated to have been appointed as Special Police Officers in 1994 and later had worked as Home Guard volunteers. They were discharged in 2002-2004 and had remained silent for nearly two decades before preferring writ petition bearing CWP No.15309-2025, which was disposed of with a direction to the State to consider them for employment as and when the need arises.

5.

We are in agreement with the judgment of Single Bench that the petitioners, who were discharged during the period from 2002 to 2004, were only volunteers and not holding any permanent post. They ought to have preferred the writ petition promptly and cannot sit over their rights for nearly two decades. This Court cannot compel the respondents to employ them at this stage.

6.

The Letters Patent Appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. 7.

All pending miscellaneous application(s) shall also stand disposed of.

(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL ) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 23.12.2025 vanita Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes No Whether Reportable :

Yes No VANITA 2025.12.24 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment