As per case facts, members of the Punjab Police Force, petitioners joined before 2008, when the 1861 Police Act and Punjab Police Rules (PPR) were in force. The State introduced ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
CWP-21095-2016
-1-
260
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
***
Date of Decision: 22.01.2026
1. CWP-21095-2016 (O&M)
Sukhwinder Singh & Others
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Another
…Respondents
And
Sr.
No.
Case No. Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)
2. CWP-10345-2018 Prithi Pal and Others State of Punjab and
Others
3. CWP-27376-2018 Ram Pal State of Punjab and
Another
4. CWP-17881-2019 Sukhwinder Singh State of Punjab and
Others
5. CWP-6307-2017 Sulakhan Singh and
Others
State of Punjab and
Another
6. CWP-9360-2018 Harpreet Singh and
Others
State of Punjab and
Another
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JAGMOHAN BANSAL.
Present:- Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Himanshu Bindal, Advocate and
Ms. Darika Sikka, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP-21095-2016 and CWP-9360-2018
Mr. Jatinder Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP-10345-2018
Mr. Vijayveer Singh, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP-27376-2018
Mr. C.S. Jattana, Advocate for the petitioners
In CWP-17881-2019
CWP-21095-2016
-2-
Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab
Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.108 to 132
in CWP-21095-2016
Mr. Ravindra Singh, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.133 to 152
in CWP-21095-2016
***
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-21095-2016.
2. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India are seeking declaration that Provincial District Police
Cadre maintained under Rule 1.1 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short
‘PPR’) cannot be bifurcated into District Police and Armed Police Cadre. They
are further seeking declaration that respondent has wrongly protected seniority
of few Officers by curating Dying Cadre.
3. The petitioners are members of Punjab Police Force. They joined
Police Department prior to 2008. Police Act, 1861 and PPR made thereunder
were in force at the time of their appointment. The State of Punjab notified
Punjab Police Act, 2007 (for short ‘2007 Act’) w.e.f. 20.02.2008. Section 80 of
2007 Act provides that State Government shall make Rules for carrying out
purposes of the Act within one year from the date on which Act comes into
force. Section 85 provides that PPR shall remain in force unless those Rules are
specifically superseded. The Government has not framed Rules under Section
CWP-21095-2016
-3-
80 of 2007 Act, thus, PPR are still in force. As per Rule 1.1 of PPR, the Punjab
Police is divided into General Police Districts namely Provincial Police District
and Railway Police District. Rule 1.3 of PPR provides that Provincial Police
General District is divided into Administrative Establishments i.e. a Training
School, a Criminal Investigation Department and District Police
Establishments. The Railway Police General District is divided into Central
Investigating Agency and such number of Sub-Divisions as the Provincial
Government may authorize from time to time. Rules 1.1 and 1.3 of PPR read
as:
“ 1.1 Constitution.- For the purposes of section 3 of the
Police Act (V of 1861) the Punjab is divided into “General
Police Districts”, namely,-
(a) the provincial Police District,
(b) the Railway Police District.
All ranks of police employed in the province are
appointed or enrolled under section 2 of the Act.
Provided that each of the Telecommunications Branch,
Finger Prints Bureau, Women Police Wing, Bank Staff, Mounted
Police, Armourers and Executive Clerical Wing, that is
uniformed clerical functionaries in various subordinate offices
shall form its uniformed cadre.
Explanation.- The expression “subordinate offices”
means the offices of the District Senior Superintendent of Police,
Director, Finger Prints Bureau, Phillaur and Superintendents
of Police, Incharge Recruits Training Centres.
XXX XXX XXX XXX
1.3. General Police, Districts - divisions of.- The Provincial
Police general district is divided into administrative
establishments; a Training School (including the Provincial
Finger Print Bureau); a Criminal Investigation Department,
and District Police Establishments. The Railway Police, general
district, is divided into a Central Investigating Agency, and such
CWP-21095-2016
-4- number of sub-divisions as the Provincial Government may
authorize from time to time.”
The Proviso to Rule 1.1 stands omitted vide notification dated
25.07.2012. The joint seniority list was prepared after deletion of aforesaid
proviso.
4. Section 4 of 2007 Act provides that there would be five cadres i.e.
District Police, Armed Police, Intelligence, Investigation and Technical &
Support Services of subordinate rank officers. Section 4 of the Act reads as:
“Organization and Composition of Police Service. - Subject to
the provisions of this Act,-
(a) the Police Service shall consist of such numbers in
various ranks and have such organizations or cadres, as the
State Government may, by general or special order, determine,
and shall include the members of the Indian Police Service,
allocated or deputed to the State;
(b) the officers of subordinate ranks of district police,
armed police, intelligence, investigation and technical and
support services shall form separate cadres. Seniority of each
cadre shall be maintained at the State level. Transfer of a
member of one cadre to another cadre shall not be allowed.
However, the officer of subordinate rank working in special
operation group may be transferred to district police after the
successful completion of the fixed tenure in special operation
group as specified by the Government. In case an officer of
subordinate rank is rendered completely or partially disabled
during operations or training, the period of fixed tenure can be
relaxed by the Director General of Police for the purpose of
transfer to district police. The subordinate rank officer who opt
for transfer to district police, if transferred, his seniority shall
be placed at the bottom of the officers holding the same rank in
the district police;
CWP-21095-2016
-5- (c) notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clause (h),
a member of the Police Service may be allowed to be deputed on
deputation from one cadre to another cadre or organisation or
department, as per rules;
(d) the direct recruitment to various subordinate ranks in
the Police Service shall be made through a State Level Police
Recruitment Board or District Level Police Recruitment Board
in a transparent manner;
(e) the mode of recruitment, pay, allowances and other
service conditions of the members of the Police Service shall be
such, as may be prescribed;
(f) the State Government shall provide for employment
opportunities to women in the Police Service and may provide
for separate physical standards for their recruitment; and
(g) the State Government may restructure the district
police in order to provide the public with an officer-oriented
civil interface of the police in such manner, as may be
prescribed.”
5. The State Government prior to 2008 curated different
Cadres/Wings. The Cadres/Wings curated by State Government comprised
District Police, Punjab Armed Police (for short ‘PAP’), Intelligence Wing,
Telecommunication Wing and Government Railway Police (GRP). The
petitioners were part of Punjab Armed Police. A bunch of writ petitions
including CWP No.4829 of 2011 titled as ‘SI Pardeep Singh and Others
Versus State of Punjab and Others’ came up for adjudication before this
Court. In the said case, the petitioners claimed that there is no separate cadre of
PAP. There should be joint seniority list of District Police and PAP. This Court
vide judgment dated 16.12.2014 allowed writ petitions holding that respondent
is obliged to maintain joint seniority list of two Cadres i.e. District Police and
PAP. In the judgment, it was specifically noted that joint seniority list is
CWP-21095-2016
-6-
required for the period prior to 2008 because 2007 Act came into force in 2008.
The operative part of the judgment reads as:
“Evidently, the Court framed a question as to whether the
shifting of the officers from P.A.P. to District Police amounted
to a change in the cadre and concluded that it would depend
upon the factual situation as to whether P.A.P. and the District
Police actually constituted two separate cadres or not. It then
went on to affirm that from the pleadings of the parties, it was
evident that there was no segregation of P.A.P. or District
Police cadres. While answering the petition, the Court relied
heavily on an assumption by referring to the hypothetical
situation to treat the P.A.P. as a separate cadre in which
eventuality, the transfer of an employee from the P.A.P. cadre to
the District Police Cadre would not rob the officer of his lien in
the P.A.P. cadre and would eventually entitle him to promotion
at par with the ones who were junior to him in the P.A.P. cadre.
It was also observed in the judgment that the transfer of an
officer from P.A.P. to District Police Cadre was merely an
administrative order which could not affect the seniority of the
concerned officers.
It is thus not difficult to conclude that P.A.P. and the
District Police did not constitute any separate cadre prior to
2008 and if that be so, then complete inter-changeability would
only suggest that the respondents would be obliged to maintain
a joint seniority list of the two categories so as to avoid any
prejudicial assignment in seniority to the affected officers.
Needless to say that after 2008, one separate cadre has been
created and the acknowledged administrative instinct of the
respondents would naturally dictate a separate seniority.
The aforesaid question posed before this Court is thus
answered as above and it declared that prior to 2008, the
respondents would be obliged to maintain a common seniority
for both the categories i.e. P.A.P. and District Police.
In one of the petitions, i.e. C.W.P. No.6501 of 2013,
learned counsel for the private respondents has raised the issue
CWP-21095-2016
-7- of delay to contend that the matter has been agitated belatedly.
I would not treat this plea to be worthy of acceptance
considering the fact that the seniority stood recast in the year
2011 and the first petition in this regard was filed in 2011 itself.
The plea is therefore, rejected.
The petitions are thus disposed of with a mandate to the
respondents to recast the seniority of the officers by keeping in
view the observations of this Court. The respondents would do
well to give wide publicity to the exercise proposed to be
undertaken and invite the claims and objections from all affected
so as to obviate the chances of any objection on this score. While
dealing with the matter, the respondents would be at liberty to
take an appropriate decision in regard to the individual claims
and pass speaking orders in this regard.”
6. The respondent in compliance of aforesaid judgment prepared a
joint seniority list of PAP and District Police. Few Police Officials especially
sports persons were liable to be reverted on account of joint seniority list. The
respondent in the Cabinet Meeting discussed the matter and decided to carve
out a Dying Cadre for those Police Officials especially Sports Persons who
were going to be reverted on account of joint seniority list.
7. The respondent after preparing joint seniority list decided to
divide all the members forming part of said list into two Cadres i.e. District
Police and PAP. The petitioners preferred petitions before this Court assailing
bifurcation of one Cadre into two Cadres i.e. District Police and PAP. This
Court vide order dated 08.11.2016 directed the respondents not to make any
promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). The said order
was modified vide order dated 15.12.2016 to the extent that in case any order
of giving current duty charge/duty charge is to be passed, the seniority of the
Officers be taken into consideration. The respondent on 22.05.2018 made a
CWP-21095-2016
-8-
statement before this Court that State will invite fresh options from all
concerned Officers in the order of seniority. The date of exercising option shall
be notified to all. The respondent filed an affidavit dated 28.05.2018 before this
Court deposing that State has decided to reconsider the matter and offered
another chance to Officials to exercise option before bifurcating the seniority
list into two Cadres. The order dated 29.05.2018 passed in the main case reads
as:
“Main case
In pursuance to the order dated 22.05.2018, an affidavit
dated 28.05.2018 of Sh. Gaurav Garg, IPS, Assistant Inspector
General of Police, Personnel-III, Punjab has been filed today in
the Court and the same is taken on record as Mark 'A'.
As per the affidavit, the State has decided to reconsider
the matter and afford another chance to exercise option to all
concerned before bifurcating the seniority list into two cadres
as per joint seniority. A notice inviting options for the cadre of
PAP or District cadre will be given which is stated to be 10 days
but at the asking of the Court, the State has agreed to allow 21
days to exercise the options and submit the same to the
competent authority within 21 days. To ensure justice to all the
stake holders, the same shall be invited by a public notice to be
issued in the newspaper having wide circulation in the State of
Punjab indicating the entire schedule of exercising the options.
The options so received shall be uploaded on the website of the
Punjab Police Department with clear indication of last date for
exercising the options. To ensure that it reaches to all the
concerned, the concerned Senior Superintendents of Police will
also be informed of the action taken and accordingly, the
seniority list will be framed.
Post again on 27.08.2018.
The State shall complete the exercise as reflected in the
affidavit (Mark-A). Reply by the remaining respondents be filed
in the meantime.
CWP-21095-2016
-9- The promotion, if any made shall be subject to the
outcome of the present case.
”
8. The petitioners filed their option and in terms of options filed by
all the Officials, the respondent bifurcated joint seniority list into two Cadres
i.e. District Police and PAP. The petitioners opted for PAP and they have been
further promoted as DSP. It is apt to mention here that 2007 Act and PPR are
applicable to Subordinate Officers which do not include DSP.
9. Learned counsel representing the petitioners led by Mr. Gaurav
Chopra, Senior Advocate submit that Section 4 of 2007 Act provides five
Cadres i.e. Armed Police, District Police, Investigation, Intelligence and
Technical and Support Services. The respondent invited options for two Cadres
i.e. District Police and PAP. As per Section 4 of 2007 Act, there are five Cadres,
thus, respondent was bound to offer options for all the five Cadres. The 2007
Act came into force w.e.f. 20.02.2008 and as per Section 80 of 2007 Act, the
respondent was bound to frame Rules within one year from the date of
implementation of 2007 Act. The respondent has miserably failed to frame
Rules in terms of Section 80 of 2007 Act. There is no provision in the PPR or
2007 Act which permits bifurcation of one Cadre into two Cadres i.e. District
Police and PAP. If respondent was of the opinion that joint seniority list should
be bifurcated, there was no reason to offer option for two Cadres. The
respondent has already curated five Cadres, thus, option ought to be given for
all the cadres. The respondent has further protected seniority of sports persons
and few other Officials who were going to be reverted on account of joint
seniority list. There is no provision in the PPR or 2007 Act which permits State
Government to create Dying Cadre.
CWP-21095-2016
-10-
10. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that State Government
in compliance of directions of this Court prepared joint seniority list of
members of District Police and PAP. Prior to 2007, there was no specific
provision for creation of District Police and PAP still two separate Cadres were
constituted. The respondent, in compliance of orders of this Court, merged both
the Cadres and prepared a joint seniority list. During the pendency of this writ
petition, the respondent invited options from members of joint seniority list.
The matter was brought in the knowledge of this Court. Interim orders were
passed by this Court. The petitioners furnished their option and as per their
option, they were allocated to District Police or PAP. The petitioners have been
further promoted, thus, by their act and conduct they have acquiesced action of
the respondent. The respondent protected rank of few Officials by curating
Dying Cadre. It was a policy decision and interference in policy decision is not
warranted. No prejudice by curating dying cadre was caused to the petitioners.
11. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
12. From the perusal of record, it is evident that prime argument of the
petitioners is that respondent has not framed Rules as required under Section
80 of 2007 Act. As per Section 85 of 2007 Act, PPR shall remain in force until
superseded. Sections 80 and 85 of 2007 Act read as:
Section 80 of 2007 Act
“ 80. (1) The State Government shall, by notification in the
Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this
Act, within one year from the date on which this Act, come into
force.
(2) Every rule made under this Act, shall be laid, as
soon as may be, after it is made, before the House of the State
Legislature, while it is in session, for a total period of fourteen
days, which may be comprised in one session or in two or more
CWP-21095-2016
-11- successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session in
which it is so laid or the successive sessions as aforesaid, the
House agrees in making any modification in the rules, or the
House agrees, that the rules should not be made, the rule shall
thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no
effect, as the case may be, so, however, that any such
modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the
validity of anything previously done or omitted to be done under
that rule.”
[Emphasis supplied]
Section 85 of 2007 Act
“ 85. The Punjab Police Rules, 1934, framed under the
Police Act, 1861 (Central Act 5 of 1861), shall remain in force,
unless those rules are specifically superseded.”
13. A conspectus of afore-cited Sections reveals that State
Government was supposed to make Rules for carrying out purposes of the Act
within one year from the date of implementation of the Act. The Act was
brought into force w.e.f. 20.02.2008, thus, Rules were required to be framed by
20.02.2009. At the first blush, argument of the petitioners seems to be attractive
and convincing, however, cannot be countenanced because of reasons
discussed hereinafter.
14. The members of Police Force upto the rank of Inspector are
governed by Punjab Police Rules. These Rules are in the form of complete code
comprising provisions with respect to recruitment, promotion, punishment,
appeal, duties of police officers etc. The legislature while enacting 2007 Act
did not repeal PPR. As per Section 85 of 2007 Act, PPR shall remain in force
unless specifically superseded. The State in view of availability of PPR did not
find it necessary to frame Rules in terms of Section 80 of 2007 Act. Had there
CWP-21095-2016
-12-
been no Rules in existence, the State was duty bound to frame Rules for the
effective implementation of 2007 Act.
15. The State Government felt need to frame Rules with respect to
recruitment, promotion and punishment of members of Intelligence Cadre,
accordingly, Punjab Intelligence Cadre (Group ‘C’) Services Rules, 2015 (for
short ‘Intelligence Cadre Rules’) were framed. Intelligence Cadre Rules are in
addition to PPR. Rule 15 of Intelligence Cadre Rules provides that members of
service would be governed by PPR with respect to matters not covered by
Intelligence Cadre Rules. Rule 15 reads as:
“ 15. Application of the rules.- For all other aspects the
Punjab Police Rules, 1934 shall be applicable to the members
of Service except rules 13.21 and 21.25.
Provided that any order issued or any action taken under
the aforesaid rules, shall be deemed to have been made or taken
under the provisions of these rules.”
16. The Intelligence Cadre Rules and in particular Rule 15 clarifies
the position. The Intelligence Cadre Rules have been framed in exercise of
power conferred by Section 80 of 2007 Act. Similarly, the State Government
has framed Punjab Police Technical and Support Services Cadre Group-C
Service Rules, 2021 (for short ‘TSS Rules’). Rule 17 of TSS Rules is mutatis
mutandis to Rule 15 of Intelligence Cadre Rules. Rule 17 reads as:
“Rule - 17. Savings :-
The provisions of the Act and the Punjab Police Rules,
1934, shall continue to apply, wherever these rules have no
provision(s), without any prejudice to these rules. Nothing in
these rules shall affect the Reservations, relaxation(s) of age
limit and other concessions required to be provided for
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, other Backward classes,
CWP-21095-2016
-13- Economically Weaker Sections, Women, Ex-servicemen and
other special categories of persons in accordance with the
orders issued by the State Government in this regard.”
It shows that Government framed Rules where there was
necessity. The Government despite framing Rules with respect to members of
Intelligence Cadre and TSS Cadre did not supersede PPR qua those cadres.
Inescapable inference is that State Government has not found it necessary to
frame separate Rules for members of District Police and PAP.
17. Section 22 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898 provides that
where any Punjab Act is repealed and re-enacted with or without modification,
then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided, rules or bye-laws made under
the repealed Act shall continue in force and be deemed to have been made under
the provisions so re-enacted. Section 22 of Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898
reads as:
“ 22. Where any Punjab Act, is repealed and re-enacted
with or without modification, then, unless it is otherwise
expressly provided, any appointment notification, order,
scheme, rule, form or bye-law, made or issued under the
repealed Act, shall so far as it is not inconsistent with the
provisions re-enacted, continue in force, and be deemed to have
been made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted, unless
and until it is superseded by any appointment notification, order,
scheme, rule, form or bye-law made or issued under the
Provisions so re-enacted.”
18. From the perusal of above quoted Section, it is evident beyond the
pale of doubt that where any State Act is repealed and re-enacted, rules or bye-
laws made under repealed Act shall continue in force unless specifically
repealed or are inconsistent with re-enacted provision. In the case in hand, the
CWP-21095-2016
-14-
State Legislature repealed 1861 Act and introduced 2007 Act. The Punjab
Police Rules, 1934 were framed under 1861 Act. There is no provision in 2007
Act disclosing that State has intention to supersede or has superseded PPR
rather there is Section 85 which protects PPR.
19. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court finds that
it was prerogative of State Government to frame new Rules under 2007 Act.
This Court cannot ask State to frame Rules. The situation could be little
different, had State Government prepared draft Rules but not notified.
20. The petitioners have raised another issue of bifurcation of joint
cadre into two cadres i.e. District Police and PAP. The petitioners are of the
opinion that as per Section 4 of 2007 Act, there are five cadres, thus, joint cadre
ought to be bifurcated into five cadres. The members of joint cadre ought to be
given option to opt any of five cadres. This Court in SI Pardeep Singh (Supra)
directed the State Government to prepare joint seniority list of members of
District Police and PAP. At the time of passing of said order, many officers
holding subordinate ranks were working with Telecommunication and
Intelligence Wing. There was no merger of members of aforesaid wings. There
was merger of only District Police and PAP. As there was merger of members
of District Police and PAP, the State was right in its action in inviting option
for District Police or PAP. The members of PAP or District Police could not be
shifted to Intelligence or Telecommunication cadres. Contention of petitioners
that they ought to be given option to apply for other cadres is misconceived,
thus, hereby rejected.
21. There is another aspect of the matter. During the pendency of
instant petition, the respondent moved an application before this Court
CWP-21095-2016
-15-
deposing that they are going to invite options from members of joint seniority
list for District Police and PAP. The petitioners did not raise objection rather
submitted their option either for District Police or PAP. They have been further
promoted. By their act and conduct, they have acquiesced action of the
respondent.
22. The petitioners though not vehemently yet have argued that
respondent without any specific provision in the Act and PPR has protected
rank of few officers while preparing joint seniority list. The respondent
discussed the matter in the meeting of Cabinet and thereafter resolved to carve
out dying cadre for the officers who were going to be demoted on account of
preparation of joint seniority list. It was a policy decision and State is always
competent to create or abolish any cadre. The Court has no right to create or
abolish any cadre or ask State to create or abolish any cadre. It is pure discretion
of the State Government. There is no provision in 2007 Act which prohibits
State Government to create dying cadre. In the absence of specific restraining
provision, the State was within its competence to carve out a dying cadre. In
any case said cadre did not affect promotional avenues of the petitioners, thus,
their grievance is more academic than real and substantive.
23. In the wake of above discussion and findings, all the petitions
deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
22.01.2026
SDK
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Legal Notes
Add a Note....