Where the State provides the substantive relief sought by petitioners during pendency of writ proceedings, and no residual grievance survives, the writ petition may be disposed of, while preserving liberty to approach the court again if fresh cause arises. This order affirms existing principles and will be binding on subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana regarding procedural redressal in service matters under Article 226.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/11523/2002 of SUKHMANDER SINGH AND ORS Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS |
| CNR | PHHC010179172002 |
| Date of Registration | 05-05-5500 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction (Punjab & Haryana High Court); procedural guidance |
| Type of Law | Service law; Constitutional Law (Article 226/227) |
| Questions of Law | Whether deemed date of appointment can be directed via writ when State has already granted relief. |
| Ratio Decidendi | When the respondents (State) have conceded to and granted the relief sought by petitioners during the pendency of the writ, and there is no outstanding grievance, the writ petition is liable to be disposed of. However, liberty must be preserved for petitioners to approach the court again if a surviving or subsequent cause is established within a time frame. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners joined as SPOs in 1992 and were absorbed as Constables in 1997; grievance was that juniors were appointed earlier as Constables. State responded that no such juniors were appointed before petitioners, and relief regarding deemed appointment date had already been given to surviving petitioners. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts regarding procedural disposal in writs where substantive relief is given |
| Follows | Established procedural principles for writ disposal when grievance redressed by State |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- When the State addresses or concedes the petitioner’s grievance in a writ petition during its pendency, the court may dispose of the petition as infructuous, granting liberty to approach again if future cause arises.
- Practitioners should move an appropriate application within the specified period if the cause survives, as per the liberty preserved in court orders.
- This approach ensures judicial economy and acknowledges instances where litigation is resolved administratively before adjudication.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the petitioners sought direction for deemed date of appointment as Constables, contending juniors were promoted earlier.
- The State replied that, according to records, no such juniors existed, and that the relief had already been granted to the surviving petitioners except for petitioner no. 1 who was reported deceased.
- Upon this factual statement, and as no further grievance survived, the court reasoned that the matter was resolved.
- The petition was thus disposed of with explicit liberty to petitioners to move an appropriate application within three months if a cause persisted or arose.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought direction for granting deemed date of appointment as Constable, alleging juniors appointed as Constables prior to them.
Respondent (State)
- Submitted no juniors to petitioners were appointed ahead of them as Constables.
- Stated petitioner no. 1 had passed away, and the remaining petitioners were already extended the deemed date of appointment.
- Noted grievance stands redressed.
Factual Background
The petitioners were engaged as Special Police Officers (SPOs) in Punjab Police in 1992 and absorbed as Constables between October to December 1997. Their grievance was that certain juniors were appointed as Constables before them. The State replied that no such juniors pre-dated their absorption, and the surviving petitioners had already been granted the deemed appointment date.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment invokes Article 226/227 of the Constitution, concerning the writ jurisdiction of High Courts for redress of individual grievances in service matters. The powers under these articles permit redressal where administrative or statutory relief has already been given, rendering the writ infructuous; however, the order preserves the liberty of affected parties to return if a residual or subsequent cause survives.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms established procedural principles for writ disposal after administrative redress.