justice disgraced by: baldev singh

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

http://www.pdffactory.com

.



Justice Disgraced

+ +

+ +



+ +

+ +

Other books by the same Author :l Sikhism and the Sikhs (Ed.)

l Was Bhindranwale a Congress Creation ?

l Pangs of a Petitioner for Justice

l Repeated Rape of Justice

l Me Judice (Ed.)

l Scam of Illegal Promotions (in press)

l ibKu mih AMØimRq (sµpw.)



Baldev Singh

+ +

+ +

Justice

Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere–Martin Luther King

2 0 1 4

Disgraced

MA



Printers:PRINTWELL, 146, INDUSTRIAL FOCAL POINT, AMRITSAR.

JUSTICE DISGRACEDby

BALDEV SINGH245, URBAN ESTATE,

KAPURTHALA -144 601 (INDIA)MOB. 098151-20919

Email : [email protected]

+ +

+ +

Published by

THE AUTHOR

ISBN 978-81-8465-829-3

First Edition 2011Second Edition 2012Third Edition 2014

Price: Rs. 100-00


mailto:[email protected]


Dedicated toLate Sirdar Kapur Singh

M.A. (Cantab), ICS,MP (third Lok Sabha), MLA (Pb.) (formerly)

+ +

+ +



.



Contents

Preface 9-20

Title Page of SLP 21

Index of Special leave Petition (civil) 22-23

Office Report of Limitition A 24

Synopsis with list of dates 25-32

Memo of Party 33

Impugned order of D.B. Presided by Justice J.S. Khehar 34-42

SLP (c) No. 160/10 43-56

Annexures :P-1 (office note of Promotion of Jaswant Singh) 57

P-2 (Promotion Letter) 58

P-3 (Representation by the Petitioner) 59

P-4 (Bank’s Circular about benefits to ECO’s/SSCO’s) 60-61

P-5 (Bank’s rejection letter) 62

P-6 (C.W.P. No. 5998/88 allowedon merits by Hon’ble High Court) 63-65

P-7 (Bank’s denial letter) 66-67

P-8 (Petitioner’s representation) 68-69

P-9 (Bank’s cryptic non speaking reply) 70

P-10 (COCP No. 523/95 of Punjab andHaryana High Court dismissed with relief) 71

+ +

+



P-11 (C.W.P. No. 5047/97 dismissed byD.B. presided by Justice V.K. Bali) 72-77

P-12 (Letter of petitioner to Adv. Ujjal Singh) 78

P-13 (SLP No. 12773/98 dismissed as withdrawn) 79

P-14 (C.W.P. No. 16989/99 of Punjab andHaryana High Court dismissed on groundof maintainability) 80-82

P-15 (SLP (C) No. 18239/07 in Supreme Courtcase remanded back to High Court) 83

P-16 (Copy of LPA No. 292/08 in CWP No. 16989/99) 84-93

P-17 (Copy of order passed by D.B. of High Courtcomprising of Justice Ashutosh Mohuntaand Justice Nirmaljit Kaur) 94

Application (I.A.) (In SLP. No 160/10 for permission toappear and argue case in person) 95-97

Copy of Complaint to H.E. The President of Indiaagainst Justice J.S. Khehar 98-101

Copy of Supreme Court order dt. 8.2.2010. (SLP(C) No. 160/10dismissed without mentioning any reason). 102

Oath of Office of Supreme Court/High Court Judge in India 103

+ +

+ +



PREFACEEx-servicemen are re-employed in Government, semi-

government and civil jobs in India. They are given certainbenefits after re-employment. I am an Ex-serviceman and wasre-employed as an officer in a Bank. I had served in the IndianAir Force as a Combatant for nine years from 1963 to 1972.National Emergency was declared by the Govt of India afterthe Chinese aggression in 1962. Punjabi soldiers had valiantlydied in nations defence and civilians Punjabis had donatedmaximum gold in national defence. Filmstar Balraj Sahni hadspecially come to Ambala Cantt to request for donations frompublic. I was then a Pre-University student at GMN College,Ambala Cantt. I discontinued my studies and joined the IAF.During 1965 and 1971 wars, I was at the forefront in Amritsarand Aizwal (Mizoram), respectively. During my Air force daysI learnt a lot. IAF is real replica of India. No caste, no religion,no regional units. All Indians mixed together, living together,interacting together, working together. Of course minoraberrations are always there. I also saw many men studyingand improving their qualifications and prospects in life. Manyuniversities permitted defence employee to appear privately.Likewise Punjab University, Chandigarh was one of those. Ihad passed my matric from P.U., Chandigarh. I did my B.A.while in service and in 1973 joined as regular student for M.A.in Mahindera College, Patiala.

I belong to a family of migrants from West Punjab.During 1947 holocaust I had lost my father, two brothers andone sister. We were dependent upon our Mamaji (uncle) whowas then posted as Post Master General of a State in India.My elder brother was facilitated by him to get engineeringdegree at Birla Engg. College, Pilani. (Raj). My uncle was veryhonest and truthful person. These were virtues during theBritish Raj but not so under Swaraj. He had soon realised it



Preface

after independence. We were trained by him to be honest andtruthful. That made me misfit in the society and employment.In India if you are loyal to the country or the institution youserve, is not good enough. You got to be loyal to your boss,who may be corrupt, selfish and detrimental to the institution.I could not tolerate all this. I also could not tolerate injustice.My track was difficult one.

After few years of service and nationalisation of thebank, I learnt that few ex-sevicemen re-employed in the bankhave been given military service benefits like increments andpromotions etc. I also applied for but was refused. I filed awrit Petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court throughan advocate in the year 1988. The matter was getting delayedand I appeared in person in 1994 and my writ was allowedon merits with specific directions to the respondent bank. Itwas not implemented by my employer. The present book inhand is outcome of that struggle for implementation of thatjudgement and order dt. 23.5.94, which was never everchallenged by my employer bank. It turned out to be a wasteof time and money for about 22 years. But, nevertheless I havealso gained first hand experience of our judicial system. Howit works and how people dealing with it behave with litigants.This is rich experience and could be called a research work.I want to share it with conscious mind who matter in decisionmaking and legal fraternity both good and bad and also thecommon man. I feel this case should not remain dead in dustgathering files in Courts. It must live on in the form of a bookand reach out to public also. Individuals like me will comeand perish. It does not matter. But it must matter, when themost important of all, justice is influenced and disgraced.When injustice is done and tolerated slavery sets in. I quoteJustice B.N. Aggarwal’s observation during hearing in SupremeCourt about 23 crore PF scam case. He said :

“judges have not descended from heaven but have

10



Preface

come from the same society which produces corruptpoliticians and corrupt babus” (TOI 11.8.08, New Delhi)

The Hon’ble judge is full of wisdom when he spoke thosewords. In fact it is the society that produces good or badteachers, doctors, judges, politicians and bureaucrats etc. Stilldeeper at the root is weather we produce good or bad humanbeings. It is this raw material that is essential for any civilised,good law abiding society. If this material is not good, societywould be brutish.

I have often heard advocates talk of good bench or notso good bench etc. They even wait for new benches arereconstituted before filing their clients petitions. I had no suchinhibitions. I respected all the judges equally but I used to sitand enjoy and most importantly learnt how to argue my casein the courts of Justice Jawahar Lal Gupta and Justice G.S.Singhvi. They are excellent human beings besides beingexcellent judges. However, I share my exprience to proveadvocates point of view.

My contempt of court petition filed through a senioradvocate failed to bring any positive result in this case. I filedanother writ petition in-person. Notice of motion was issuedby Division Bench of the High Court on CWP No. 5047/97presided by Justice N.C. Jain after office note of promotiondt. 8.1.80 of Jaswant Singh was read out before the Court(Annexure P-1). After Completion of service, a writtenstatement dt 14.10.97 was filed by advocates P.S. Patwaliaand Rohit Ahuja on behalf of respondent No 2 only.Replication filed by me was allowed to be placed on recordby D.B. presided by Justice J.L. Gupta on 22.12.97. On nextdate i.e. 18.2.98 it was listed before another D.B. presided byJustice V.K. Bali, which was unusual. Usually it is listed beforethe same D.B. which had heard the case earlier and hadallowed replication to be placed on record. But without anyhesitation, doubt or reservation I argued my case and

11



Preface

advocate P.S. Patwalia (he is son of Justice Kuldip Singh ofSupreme Court. He was appointed Judge of High CourtChandigarh but soon resigned) argued for respondent No 2.The order was reserved. The decision/judgement waspronounced on 6.3.98 without any information to thepetitioner. In person is informed by the Courts but in this caseit was not and the CWP No. 5047/97 was dismissed. However,a munshi informed me of the Judgement. After getting copyof judgement I found name of Namit Kumar as advocateinstead of P.S. Patwalia. Namit Kumar was not givenvakaltnama by the respondant bank therefore, it was wrongand doubt developed in my mind.

Next step was to file an SLP in Supreme Court. It wasfiled through an advocate and withdrawn for reasons givenin letter dt. 22.8.98 to Advocate (Annexure P-12, page 77)in paper book (SLP), need no repetition here again.

A Civil writ Petition No. 16989/99 filed again forimplementation of judgement and order dt. 23.5.94, in theHigh Court of Punjab and Haryana. It came up for hearingbefore D.B. comprising Justice J.L. Gupta and Justice A.S.Garg on 8.12.99. After brief hearing, Notice was issued for24.3.2000. On next date of hearing office report said serviceto respondents 2 and 3 was completed and order was passedto them to file written statement but did not file any reply.Again on 18.5.2000 similar order was passed but therespondent No 2 did not file any reply. On next date my filein the registry of the High Court was missing. On 6.8.2001my case was listed before the D.B. comprising JusticeV.K. Bali and Justice J.S. Khehar. On that day I fell sick andcould not reach Chandigarh from Amritsar. My case wasdismissed in default by hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali. Duringmy sittings in Courts I had seen many instances where noneappeared but their cases were never dimissed in default. Onthe contrary I had seen in a case IN Person like me who did

12



Preface

not come to court and the judge ordered that next date beinformed to him. In my case on very first opportunity it wasdismissed in default. (RAGAR DITTA). However, my case wasrestored after I had applied for its restoration. As a matterof rule civil cases are restored. It was his judgement of 6.3.98I had prayed was wrong, in this paper book (case). I feltaggrieved at the vindictive attitude of the constitutionalauthority as high as Judge. I could not tolerate it. There islimit to toleration. I sent all the facts to H.E. the Presidentof India. Not that some action will come against the judge.I knew legal limitations of the President or for that matter anyauthority. But I felt satisfied that I did not bow to injustice.That is what my Guru had taught me.

On next date i.e. 13.2.2002 my case was listed beforeanother D.B. None appeared for respondents, speciallyrespondent No. 2. I appeared and argued that respondentNo. 2 is deliberately not filling written statement inspite ofservice being completed and is using delaying tactics to delaythe final decision. The Court passed the following order :

CWP No. 16989/99Present : Baldev Singh, Petitioner-in-person.AdmittedTo be listed for arguments on 30.7.2002. Meanwhile, the

service shall be got completed.

13.2.2002 R.L. AnandJudge

Amar DuttJudge

Service was already completed. The all powerful registrydid not list the case for arguments for about 5 years, inspiteof repeated visits and requests to officials. I have learntthrough direct and indirect experience that registry officialscan be influenced for listing of cases, both delay and early

13



Preface14

hearing in rare cases. CBI had arrested three employees ofregistry of Supreme Court for listing of case early forconsiderations. (TOI 11.2.09) I would be writing more in mytwo other books titled, Pangs of a petitioner for justice andScam of illegal promotions. (Both these books are underpreparation.) The respondent No. 2 filed its written statementdt. 19.3.07 after seven years of service of Notice and casedecided on 28.3.07. It was dismissed on ground ofmaintainability. However, on merits it was admitted thatrespondent No 3, Jaswant Singh was given military servicebenefits. I must confess to the greatness of Justice S.N.Aggarwal for having admitted the truth and virtually reversingthe order passed by the D.B. presided by Justice V.K. Bali on6.3.98. Guru Nanak said, “Truth is higher, still higher istruthful living”.

The only option left for me was to petition the Hon’bleSupreme Court. That the much needed maintainability laywith it.

My SLP (civil) No. 18239/07 came up for hearing beforeHon’ble D.B. comprising Justice A.K. Mathur and JusticeMarkandey Katju on 12.10.07. After brief hearing notice wasissued. Mine was the last case (Petitioner-in-Person’s case islisted in the last, a security personnel is sent along to preventany misconduct, {One gets feeling of hangman with him}security pass is required to enter court room and he/she isallowed inside the court room just a few cases before his/hercase is listed and called for hearing). It is a practice that allcases listed for hearing are sent to concerned judges’ housea day earlier so that Hon’ble judge is able to have cursory orthorough reading of case. What a judge reads in a paper book,either he knows or the God. Others can imagine only. But Ihave seen some judges are so through that advocates cannotdodge them while arguing case for their clients. They aremasters of their profession and the court. All judges are sothorough at the first hearing itself when notice is issued or



Preface

the petition is dismissed, the decision has to be taken onmerits of each case. Therefore, negligence is not appreciatedby Bar members.

After notice, my case was listed before the Court of theRegistrar S.G. Shah on 3.12.07. (earlier cases used to be listedbefore judge’s courts. One CJI changed it to be listed beforeRegistrars till service is completed. It reduces the workloadof judges). When judiciary is alert and sees through the gameof delaying tactic of respondents it passes orders like the onereproduced below. It reflects positive and determined approachof the Registrar. But, ‘‘all the five fingers are not equal”example stands good for us Indians.

The order reads as follows :“Date 03.12.2007 This Petition was called on for

hearing today.For Petitioner (s)In PersonFor Respondent (s) Mr. Gagan Deep Sharma, Adv.

For Mr. Ajay Pal, Adv.UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

ORDERIssue fresh notice upon respondent No. I and 3, withoutadditional process fee and spare copies of pleadings,which is to be sent through the concerned District Courtof Delhi for effecting service upon unserved RespondentNos 1 and 3, with a direction to the serving officer toaffix the notice at the given address, if the notice couldnot be served in due course. However, petitioner isdirected to serve the copies of the pleadings to theconcerned Advocates who have filed their appearance inthe matter.Mr. Gagan Deep Sharma, learned Advocate appearing onbehalf of Mr. Ajay Pal, Advocate-on-Record acceptsnotice for Respondent No 2 and seeks time to fileVakalatnama and Counter Affidavit.They may do so before 12th February, 2008.

15



Preface

List the matter on 12th February, 2008.(S.G. SHAH)

Registrar.”

This Order had come after I had prayed that on sameaddresses notices were served in High Court. Now it could bedelaying tactics of respondent No 2.

Again on 15.4.08, even after completion of servicerespondent No 2 prayed for time. The Court passed thefollowing order :

“Sufficient time has been granted to respondent No 2for filling the Counter Affidavit. Hence, no furthertime can be granted by this Court. List the matterbefore the Hon’ble Court.”

(S.G. SHAH)Registrar.

On 14.7.08 my case was listed before Hon’ble Court ofJustice A.K. Mathur and Justice J.M. Panchal and thefollowing order was passed :

“Learned Counsel for the Punjab and Sind Bank(respondent No 2 herein) had handed over a copy ofthe Counter Affidavit to the petitioner appearing inperson. Petitioner, appearing in person prays for fourweeks time for filling rejoinder affidavit and submitsthat the matter may be listed for final disposalthereafter.Let rejoinder affidavit be filed within four weeks. Putup for final disposal thereafter.”

As luck would have it, Justice A.K. Mathur retired soonafter. Now the role of registry became crucial. Last orderpassed on 14.7.08 had Justice J.M. Panchal as second judgebut when the Notice was issued second judge was JusticeMarkandey Katju. What the rules of listing of SC Registry sayI do not know but on next date my case was listed before

16



Preface

Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice Markandey Katju. When mycase came up for final disposal on 29.8.08 Justice MarkandeyKatju insisted that the case be remanded back to High Courtbecause it is passed by Single Bench (reader may kindly notethat he had issued notice on 12.10.07 being second judge, onthat day itself it should have been remanded) When I prayedthat I may be allowed to read out impugned order, JusticeAltamas Kabir permitted me (so nice of him). From theimpugned order I read out that

“Thereafter, he had filed CWP No 5047 of 1997. It wasdismissed by the hon’ble Division Bench of this courton 6.3.1998 (Annexure P-10) by passing a detailedjudgement.”

But still Justice Markandey Katju was unmoved, therefore, mycase was remanded back to High Court, though it was orderedto be listed for final disposal by earlier D.B. of Hon’bleSupreme Court itself. And also not withstanding my pleadingsthat I am a Senior Citizen and such cases are decided onpriority. Therefore proverb ‘justice delayed is justice denied’,has been changed to justice disgraced. Not only that it isrepeatedly disgraced. To me it is like repeated rape of justice.

Later on I have read in newspapers that Single Benchcases are heard and decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Twoprominent cases I would like to mention here. Firstly, JusticeNadira Patherya of Calcutta High Court had passed an orderagainst BCCI officials. Times of India of November 22, 08reports, “Pawar, BCCI move Supreme Court against CalcuttaHC Order.” And SC stayed the order on 5.12.08. Secondly,Justice Ranjit Singh Randhawa of Punjab and Haryana HighCourt had passed an order in the case of Anurag Saxena, SSVirk etc. It was stayed by Apex Court (The Tribune 15.2.09).There may many many more examples. There is Punjabiproverb KAON AKHE RANIE AGGA DHAK (who can dare tellthe queen, cover your naked front).

17



Preface

Never mind, an order is order and has to be obeyed. Ifiled an LPA No 292/08 in Punjab and Haryana High Courtand it came up for hearing before Hon’ble D.B. comprisingof Justice Ashutosh Mohunta and Justice Nirmaljit Kaur. Theyissued Notice and made favourable observations in their orderalso. They had no inhibitions about maintainablity but issuednotice on merits (Annexure P-17) dt. 27.2.09. But when itcame before D.B. presided by Justice J.S. Khehar (He is nowjudge at Supreme Court and is likely to be first Sikh CJI) itattained different color altogether. He was junior to JusticeV.K. Bali at the High Court in the same division banch. Thisconstitutional authority, before I could open my mouth forarguments threatened me with heavy costs. He had noconsideration for oath of office, which says no ILL-WILL, noconsideration for Supreme Court’s directions dt 29.8.08,observation of another D.B. of High Court who had issuednotice and that respondent No 2 had not filed reply to thenotice issued by High Court. However, he admitted in hisjudgement that respondent No 3, Jaswant Singh was givenmilitary service benefits twice and the same are denied toBaldev Singh. That is what my case was ! This is clearviolation of article 14 and 16 of the constitution and the orderdt. 23.5.94 of the High Court.

Judgements are displayed on internet for every one toread but this judgement in not displayed on high Court’sinternet.

Aggrieved, I sent facts to my former Supreme Commander,the President of India.

One last legal remedy was avilable to me. I filed SpecialLeave Petition (Civil) No 160/10 in the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the hope that my case would be heard and decidedon merits. My case came up for hearing before D.B. presidedby Justice Altamas Kabir at about 1810 hrs on 8.2.10. (Heis popular with advocates. He hears them with patience andsits till all cases are heard, time is no limitation for him. He

18



Preface

is sure to become Chief Justice of India. He is nephew of Prof.Humayun Kabir (Bengali Bhadra Lok), a secular intellectualand Cabinet Minister of Nehru era.)

While I was arguing my case on merits, Hon’ble presidingJudge told me, “you have made series of complaints againstjudges, no intervention, dismissed.” My reply was, “I hadmerely stated facts.” Then I prayed that my case may be heardon merits. Then he repeated “No, dismissed.” If my complaintsagainst judges are false/wrong then I should be proceededagainst but case should have been decided on merits.

Then again I prayed, “My Lord, If Supreme Court is notgoing to hear my case on merits then who will, where shouldI go.”

There was no response from Hon’ble Supreme Court. Iargued, “My lord, my case was remanded back to High Courtby Supreme Court. I was arguing in High Court on thedirections of this Court, costs of Rs 10000/- has been imposedon me. Kindly refund that amount.”

Justice Altamas Kabir, “Mr. Baldev Singh, you have madeseries of complaints against judges. No intervention, dismissed”.In another judgement Justice Altmas Kabir had held that;technicalties could not stand in the way, particularly if theorder would result in injustice. He further said, the SupremeCourt had the inhearent powers to correct the injustice.

My last words were, “Grateful, my lord” and I bowed alittle before highest judicial authority of india i.e. Bharat andmade my exit from the Court room. A security man wasbehind me. Another security personnel was sitting betweenme and the Hon’ble Judges, facing me. They were on dutyto see that I do not misbehave with Hon’ble judge. I am andisciplined, civilised and God fearing man, but fearless whenfighting for truth and Justice. In fact I was expecting anotherimpositions of costs. God saved me. But while coming out, anEnglish proverb croped up in my mind, “Birds of same featherfly together.” This proverb was used by Hon’ble SC while

19



Preface

confirming death sentence on Kehar Singh, convict in murdercase of Mrs. Indira Gandhi.

Justice is legal right of every petitioner/litigant but he/she is at the mercy of advocates and judges. If he/she is lucky,will come across good and honest advocate but if unlucky likeme will pay money and also get injustice. System is not sobad as some say, but it is people dealing with it are good orbad. If senior officers/executives do not act arbitrarily, halfof litigation will come down in courts. If senior officers/executives do not act arbitrarily half the litigation will comedown in courts. It has gone from bad to worst. There is noother alternative nor any escape. An advocate after readingthis book told me, “It was not expected from Justice Kabir.”One law Minister says, “In-house mechanism has failed” (TheTribune, Feb. 24,09), another Law minister differs with him(The Tribune, Feb. 16, 2010). Both ministers of sameGovernment but different individuals. No early solution is alsoin sight, Hence, this book for those who are concerned aboutjustice, truth, honesty and also those who are concernedabout the future of this country. If this can happen toindividual like me it can happen to any body/others also. Somany jurists have complained against judges. Now their casesshould also be not heard and decided on merits. Those juristsare powerful but I am an weak individual. Eminent jurist FaliS. Nariman said, “with few exceptions, the higher judiciarytends to stick together when anyone speaks of wrong doingamongst them, even though they themselves know the truth.I would describe it as a spirit of trade unioniusm. Judges havewrapped themselves in a clock of inviolability (India Today).”Where is equality guaranteed in the Constitution of largestdemocracy in the world ? Our constitution is defied, disobeyedand defiled by those who have taken oath to protect it, respectit, and impliment it.

04.04.2014 Baldev SinghKapurthala Mobile : 098151-20919

20



IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Special Leave Petition (C) No...............of 09

(Against the impugned judgement and final order dt.25.5.09 passed by the D.B. of Punjab and Haryana HighCourt at Chandigarh, dismissed the LPA No. 292/08 in CWPNo. 16989/99 not on merits but maintainability).

(with prayer for interim relief)

IN THE MATTER OF :

Baldev Singh ..............................Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and ors .........................Respondents

PAPER BOOK(for details kindly see inside)

BALDEV SINGH : PETITIONER IN PERSONA – 32, Sector 50, Noida 210, 301 (U.P)

Mobile No. O98151-20919

160/10

Justice Disgraced 21




Baldev Singh Versus Union of India & Ors.

INDEX

Sl. No. Particulars of Documents Date Page

1. Office Note on limitation A2. Listing Performa A1 - A23. Synopsis with list of dates 11.8.09 B to I4. Impugned judgement and order

dt. 25.5.09 passed by D.B. ofPunjab & Haryana High Court InLPA No. 292/08 inCWP No. 16989/99) 25.5.09 1 to 10

5. SLP with affidavit 11.8.09 11 to 246. ANNEXURE P-1 (office Note of

promotions of Jaswant Singh,respondent no 3) 30.1.80 25

7. ANNEXURE P-2 (promotion letter) 6.2.80 268. ANNEXURE P-3

(representation to Respondent No. 2) 12.12.86 279. ANNEXURE P-4 (respondent Bank’s

Circular giving military servicebenefits to ECO’s/SSCO’s) 13.12.86 28 & 29

10. ANNEXURE P-5(respondent Bank’s rejection letter) 22.12.86 30

11. ANNEXURE P-6 (CWP No. 5998/88allowed on merits by Hon’ble Punjaband Haryana High Court) 23.5.94 31 to 33

12. ANNEXURE P-7(respondent No 2 denial letter) 27.9.94 34 to 35

13. ANNEXURE P-8(representation to respondent No 2) 19.3.95 36 & 37

* Note : These page Nos. are of the Original Paper Book and not of thisbook.

*

Justice Disgraced22



14. ANNEXURE P-9 (respondent No 2’scryptic & non-speaking reply) 5.4.95 38

15. ANNEXURE P-10 (COCP No. 523/95 ofPunjab & Haryana High Courtdismissed with relief) 10.10.95 39

16. ANNEXURE P-11 (CWP No. 5047/97dismissed by D.B. of Punjab & HaryanaHigh Court) 6.3.98 40 to 45

17. ANNEXURE P-12(letter to advocate Ujjal Singh) 22.8.98 46

18. ANNEXURE P-13(SLP (C) No. 12773/98 inSupreme Court dismissedas withdrawn) 1.9.98 47

19. ANNEXURE P-14(CWP No. 16898/99 of Punjab &Haryana dismissed on groundof maintainability 28.3.07 48 to 50

20. ANNEXURE P-15(SLP (C) No 18239/07 in Supreme Court.Case remanded back to HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana,disposed of) 29.8.08 51

21. ANNEXURE P-16(Copy of LPA No. 292/08 inCWP No. 16989/99 ofPunjab & Haryana High Court 18.9.08 52 to 61

22. ANNEXURE P-17(Copy of Order dt. 27.2.09 passedby D.B. of Punjab & Haryana HighCourt in the matter of LPA No. 292/08in CWP No. 16989/99) 27.2.09 62

Place : New DelhiDate : August 12, 09 Petitioner-in-Person




IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (Civil)

No...............of 09

IN THE MATTER OF :

Baldev Singh .....................................Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and ors ..........................Respondents

OFFICE REPORT OF LIMITATION

THIS PETITION IS WITHIN TIME

New Delhi Section Officer

160/10

A

Justice Disgraced24




SLP (C) No.......................

Baldev Singh Versus Union of India and ors

Synopsis with list of DatesThe instant Special Leave Petition (Civil) arises out of

the judgement and final order dated 25.05.09 in matter ofLPA No. 292/08 In CWP No 16989/99 passed by the Hon’bleD.B. of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, haserroneously dismissed the Appeal without passing the orderon merits but on ground of maintainability.

That the petitioner’s CWP No. 5998/88 was allowed onmerits on 23.5.94 by Hon’ble Single Bench of Punjab andHaryana High Court with the directions to the respondentNo. 2 to consider the case of petitioner if Jaswant Singh,respondent No 3, was granted military service benefits whilepromoting him on 6.2.80 and on 15.12.83. That the casewas decided on merits. That the respondent No 2 rejectedthe case of petitioner but did not go in for appeal in Hon’bleHigh Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court, the only legal remedyavailable to the respondent No 2, against the judgement andfinal order dt. 23.5.94. That since then petitioner isstruggling for the implementation of order dated 23.5.94and in the efforts the petitioner had filed COCP No.523/95, CWP No. 5047/97, SLP (C) No. 12773/98, and SLP(C) No. 18239/07 and all these petitions form part of thisSLP (C) for the perusal of this Hon’ble Court as Annexures.

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgement and finalorder dated 25.5.09 in the matter of LPA No. 292/08 in CWPNo. 16989/99, passed by D.B. of Punjab & Haryana HighCourt the petitioner is filing the instant Special LeavePetition (Civil).

B

160/10

Contd......C




18.5.1976 The petitioner joined as officer Trainee in theservice of respondent No 2 when in privatesector bank.

11..3.1977 The petitioner joined as regular officer.30.1.1980 Jaswant Singh, respondent No. 3 office note

of promotion. ANNEXURE P-16.2.1980 Jaswant Singh, Respondent No. 3 promotions

letter. ANNEXURE P-215.4.1980 Respondent Bank Nationalised by the

Government of India along with other six banks.15.12.1983 Jaswant Singh, respondent No 3 promoted to

junior management grade scale-II in grossviolation of promotion regulation 17 of Punjaband Sind Bank (officers) Service Regulations-1982, giving him the military service benefitswhich included large amount of arrears andrevised pay scales.

20.2.1986 Petitioner applied for military service benefits.12.8.86 Petitioner’s second representation.5.9.86 Respondent No 2 seeks clarification.12.9.86 Petitioner gives clarification (reply)18.9.86 Respondent No 2 issues Circular giving benefits

to general category of Ex-servicemen.17.11.86 Respondent No 2 issued another Circular for

promotion to workmen to officers.12.12.86 Petitioner sends detailed reminder.

ANNEXURE P-313.12.1986 Respondent No 2 issued another Circular for

benefits to ECO’s/SSCO’s for military servicerendered during National Emergency but notgiven to OTHER RANKS, like the petitionerwho were similarly placed, therefore, violated

C

Justice Disgraced26



Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.ANNEXURE P-4

22.12.86 Respondent Bank rejects military servicebenefits to petitioner wrongly.ANNEXURE P-5

23.5.1994 Petitioner’s CWP No. 5998/88 was allowed onmerits by Hon’ble single Bench of Punjab andHaryana High Court with the directions torespondent No. 2 to consider the case ofpetitioner if military service benefits given toJaswant Singh, respondent No. 3, whilepromoting him on 6.2.80 and 15.12.83.ANNEXURE P-6

27.9.94 Respondent No. 2 denies having given anymilitary service benefits to Jaswant Singh,respondent No 3 in this case, while promotinghim on 6.2.80 (before nationalisation of theBank) and on 15.12.83 (after nationalisation).Legal remedy to appeal against the order dt.23.5.94 not availed by the respondent No 2.ANNEXURE P-7

19.3.95 Petitioner makes a representation stating thatthe respondent bank had not denied in wirttenstatement in Hon’ble High Court that nomilitary service benefits were given to jaswantSingh. That it was also stated that, “Mr.Jaswant Singh was promoted when senior tohim were promoted in 1993 and 1994 after agap of over 13 years.” ANNEXURE P-8

5.4.95 The respondent No. 2’s reply was cryptic andnon-speaking. ANNEXURE P-9

10.10.1995 Petitioner’s COCP No. 523/95 was dismissedby Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Courtwith the directions that, “It will be open to

D




the petitioner to challenge the order declininghim the benefits of military service inappropriate proceeding according to law”.ANNEXURE P-10

10.4.97 CWP No. 5047/97 was filed and Notice ofMotion issued by Hon’ble D.B. of Punjab andHaryana High Court comprising Justices N.C.Jain and Justice B. Rai when office not ofpromotion of Jaswant Singh, ANNEXUREP-1, with this SLP was read out by thepetitioner in the Court.

8.12.97 Petitioner filed replication C.M. No. 28102/97and it was allowed to be placed on record byHon’ble D.B. presided by Justice J.L. Gupta.And the next date was given as 18.2.98.

18.2.98 That the arguments took place before anotherD.B. presided by Justice V.K. Bali. That onlyrespondent No 2 had filed written statementand on behalf of respondent No 2 advocateP.S. Patwalia had appeared and argued thecase. That the order was reserved.

6.3.1998 That the CWP No. 5047/97 was dismissed byD.B. of Punjab & Haryana High Court. That theJudgement and final order was passed withoutany information to the petitioner, who appearedIN PERSON. That only pre-nationalisationarguments were considered, that too withwrong interpretations. That the statutorypromotions regulations 17 of Punjab and SindBank (officers) Service Regulation-1982 wereignored. That the promotions Reg. 17 isreproduced as under :“Regulation 17 (1). Promotions to all gradesof officers in the Bank shall be made in

E

Justice Disgraced28



accordance with the policy laid down by theBoard from time to time, having regard to theguidelines of the Govt. If any.”That Jaswant Singh, respondent No 3 waspromoted to Grade-II on 15.12.83 by givinghim the military service benefits he hadrendered in the Army for 24 years and largeamount of arrears and revised pay were paidto him. Thus he had superceded over 700 ofhis senior and more meritorious officers. Thatthe Bank’s first Promotion Policy was notifiedvide Staff Circular No 1360 dt. 12.4.84 interms of the aforesaid regulation 17. That itis mathematically clear that Jaswant Singh,respondent No 3, was promoted almost fivemonths before the policy was notified.That the respondent Bank (No. 2) in its writtenstatement had never ever claimed that JaswantSingh, respondent No 3, was promoted onmerits, yet the Order dt. 6.3.98 decided thathe was promoted on merits. That the sameOrder is ANNEXURE P-11

4.6.98 Petitioner aggrieved by the Order dt 6.3.98 inCWP No. 5047/97 filed an SLP (C) in SupremeCourt through an advocate Ujjal Singh againstthe High Court order.

18.8.1998 Petitioner gets copy of the SLP from hisadvocate with great difficulty. That afterreading the petition it was noted by thepetioner that many vital points have not beenincluded in the SLP No. 12773/98. That mycase was listed before Hon’ble D.B. on thatdate for hearing. That petitioner wanted toenter the Court Room and explain the whole

F




matter to the Court but was not allowed bysecurity men for security reasons. Thatpetitioner even approached the Security officerand Section IV B officer but none was of anyhelp. That the petitioner’s advocate did notverify the petitioner for entry pass. That thepetitioner had to return to Amritsar adisheartened but determined man.

22.8.98 Petitioner wrote a registered letter to advocateUjjal Singh to withdraw the SLP in SupremeCourt with permission to file revised petitionerwithin four weeks. That letter is ANNEXUREP-12.

1.9.98 That the SLP (C) No. 12773/98 was dismissedas withdrawn by Supreme Court but permissionto file revised petition was not allowedbecause Advocate Ujjal Singh misrepresentedthe facts before the Hon’ble Court. therefore,miscarriage of justice. ANNEXURE P-13.

8.12.1999 Petitioner files CWP No. 16989/99 in Hon’blePunjab and Haryana High Court. Notice ofMotion isued by Hon’ble D.B.

28.3.07 CWP No. 16989/99 came up for hearingbefore Single Bench of Punjab and HaryanaHigh Court. It was dismissed on grounds ofmaintainability but on merits it was admittedthat Jaswant Singh, respondent No 3, wasgiven military service benefits. That judgementand final order is ANNEXURE P-14.

12.10.07 SLP (C) No. 18239/07 came up for hearingbefore Hon’ble D.B. of Supreme Courtcomprising of Justices A.K. Mathur andMarkandey Katju. After hearing Notice wasissued.

G

Justice Disgraced30



29.8.08 SLP (C) No. 18239/07 was listed for finaldisposal before Hon’ble D.B. of Supreme Courtcomprising Justice Altamas Kabir and JusticeMarkandey Katju. That after hearing it wasremanded back to the Hon’ble Punjab andHaryana High Court. ANNEXURE P-15

18.9.08 LPA No 292/08 in CWP No 16989/99 filedin Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court asper directions of the Apex Court. Copy of LPA292/08 is ANNEXURE P-16

27.2.09 LPA No 292/08 in CWP No 16989/99 came upfor hearing before Hon’ble D.B. of Punjab andHaryana High Court. Notice of Motion issued.ANNEXURE P-17

25.5.09 LPA No. 292/08 in CWP No 16989/99 cameup for hearing before Hon’ble D.B. of Punjaband Haryana High Court. None of therespondents, especially respondent No 2 didnot file any reply/written statement. That atoutset Hon’ble presiding Judge warned thepetitioner that, you are exploiting judicialprocess and would be asked to pay heavycosts. That the case was dismissed on groundof maintainability again and not consideringthe case on merits. That heavy costs of Rs.10000/- was imposed on the petitioner, notshowing any consideration for that the casewas remanded back on the Orders of Hon’bleSupreme Court (ANNEXURE P-15)That in view of aforementioned facts and thelaw petitioner being aggrieved of the judgementand final order dated 25.5.09 passed byHon’ble Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana

H




High Court at Chandigarh in the matter of LPANo. 29/08 in CWP NO. 16989/99, the petitionerpreferred the present Special Leave Petition(Civil) under Article 136 of the Constitution ofIndia.

Place : New DelhiDate : August 12. 2009 Petitioner-in-person

A-32, Sector 50,Noida 201, 301 (U.P.)

I

Justice Disgraced32



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB ANDHARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

LPA NO. 292/08IN

CWP NO. 16989/99

MEMO OF PARTY

Baldev Singh, Ex-Officer,Punjab and Sind Bank,R/O 58, Industrial Complex,Goindwal 143, 422 (Punjab) .......................Petitioner

VS.

1. Union of India through,The Secretary (Banking),Ministry of Finance,(Banking Division)Govt. Of India,New Delhi

2. Chairman and M.D.,Punjab and Sind Bank,21, Rajindera Place,New Delhi 110 008

3. Mr Jaswant Singh,Ex-Manager, c/o,Punjab and Sind Bank,21, Rajindera Place,Personnel Deptt,New Delhi 110 008 ....................Respondents.

Date August, 09 Filed byBaldev Singh

Petitioner-in-Person

1





LPA NO. 292/08IN

CWP NO. 16989/99

Baldev Singh S/0 Mr. Kartar Singh,Ex-Officer, PSB, 58, Industrial Complex,Goindwal 143, 422 (Distt. Tarn Taran) ............Petitioner

Versus




2

Justice Disgraced34



LETTERS PATENT APPEAL under Clause – X of LettersPatent Appeal for setting aside the judgement and orderdated 28.3.2007 passed by Hon’ble Single Bench in C.W.P.No. 16989/1999 titled Baldev Singh Versus Union of Indiaand ors. That hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal in its Orderdiscussed the case on merit in favour of the petitioner butdismissed it on the ground/question of maintainability.That the petitioner filed an SLP (C) in the Hon’ble SupremeCourt. That the same SLP (C) No. 18239/2007 was disposedof with directions dt. 29.8.08. That the impugnet orderdated 28.3.07 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court directionsdated 29.8.08 are Annexures A-1 and A-2 respectively. Thatit is prayed to accept this appeal and allow the wirt petitionNo. 16989/99 with costs.

3




IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB ANDHARYANA CHANDIGARH

LPA No. 292 of 2008 inCWP No. 16989 of 1999

Date of decision : 25.5.2009

Baldev Singh .....Appellant

Vs.

Union of India and others ....Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR.HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGEMASIH

Present : Mr. Baldev Singh appellant in person.Mr. I.P. Singh, Advocate, for respondentNos. 2 and 3

J.S. KHEHAR, J. (Oral)The very limited claim raised by the appellant is for the

grant of military service benefits, as have been granted toone of his colleagues namely, Jaswant Singh. In this behalf,it is pointed out that the aforesaid Jaswant Singh wasappointed as an officer in the respondent-bank on 3.12.1976.On the basis of the military service rendered by him, he waspromoted in the first instance as Sub Manager on 6.2.1980,and thereafter he was placed in the Middle ManagementGrade Scale-II with effect from 15.12.1983. As against theaforesaid benefits allowed to Jaswant Singh, although thepetitioner was inducted into the employment of therespondent bank as an officer on 1.3.1977, yet he has notbeen granted any benefit of his military service. Since theaforesaid claim raised by the appellant was not granted to

4

Justice Disgraced36



him, he approached this Court by filling CWP No. 5998 of1988.* The aforesaid writ petition came to be disposed ofwith a direction to the respondent-bank to consider theclaim of the appellant for military service benefits.

In compliance with the directions issued by this Courtin CWP No. 5998 of 1998, the respondent-bank consideredthe claim of the appellant but did not find favour with hisclaim. Accordingly, by an order dated 27.9.1994, the claimfor military service benefits was denied.

As against the order passed by the respondent-bankdated 27.9.1994, the appellant approached this Court byfilling COCP No. 523 of 1995, bringing to the notice of thisCourt the factual aspect recorded in the opening paragraphof this order. On the basis thereof, he asserted that graveinjustice has been done to him, and the orders passed bythis Court were deliberately and intentionally disobeyedwhile declining the military service benefits to him. COCPNo. 523 of 1995, was dismissed by this Court on 10.10.1995.The appellant was however, granted liberty to avail of hisremedy in accordance with law.

Consequent upon the dismissal of COCP No. 523 of1995, the appellant again approached this Court by filingCWP No. 5047 of 1997. A Division Bench of this Courtpassed a detailed order dismissing the aforesaid writ petitionon 6.3.1998. This Court arrived at the conclusion that thepromotion granted to Jaswant Singh was not based on themilitary service rendered by him, but was based on hismerit. It also arrived at the conclusion that the MilitaryService Rules relied upon by the appellant were inapplicableto him.

5

* Justice G.C. Garg had allowed my CWP on merits but Justice J.S. Khehardeliberately and wrongly quotes as ‘disposed of’ legal meaning and implicationof both the orders are different.




Dissatisfied with the order passed by this Court on6.3.1998 CWP No. 5047 of 1997, the appellant approachedthe Supreme Court by filing a petition for Special Leave toAppeal (Civil) No. 12773 of 1998. The appellant however,instructed his counsel to withdraw the aforesaid petition forSpecial Leave to Appeal. The Supreme Court accordinglypermitted the appellant to withdraw the aforesaid petitionfor Special Leave to Appeal vide order dated 1.9.1998. Indoing so the prayer made by the appellant to grant himliberty to file a revised petition was declined. The orderpassed by the Supreme Court on 1.9.1998 disposing ofpetition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 12773 of1998, is being extracted hereunder :

‘‘Shri Ujjal Singh, learned counsel for the petitionerstates that he has received instructions from thepetitioner to withdraw the S.L.P. with permission tofile a revised petition. We are not inclined to grantpermission to file a revised petition. We dismiss theS.L.P. as withdrawn”.

In view of the fact that liberty was not allowed to theappellant to file a revised petition before the Supreme Court,it is apparent that the remedy available to the petitioneragainst the order passed by this Court dated 6.3.1998dismissing CWP No.5047 of 1997, came to be exhausted.With the dismissal of the aforesaid petition for Special Leaveto Appeal, the order dated 6.3.1998 attained finality.*

Despite the factual and legal position depictedhereinabove, the appellant again approached this court byfilling CWP No.16989 of 1999. This Court declined toentertain the aforesaid writ petition, so as to adjudicate themerits of the claim by the appellant. In fact, the calim of

6

* Has court procedure (finality) over riding effect over the Constitution itself?

Justice Disgraced38



the appellant was declined vide order dated 28.3.1997, interalia, with the following observations :

‘‘The submission of the petitioner only was that someof the points raised by the petitioner have not beendiscussed in the judgement passed by the Hon’bleDivision Bench on 6.3.1998 (Annexure P-I0). Hencethe present writ petition is maintainable.This submission is misconceived. If some of thepoints raised by the petitioner were not discussed inthe judgement dated 6.3.1998, the only remedy opento the petitioner was to challenge the said judgementby filing an appeal in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.The petitioner had filed the appeal, but that was gotdismissed by the petitioner as withdrawn. No doubtthe petitioner has sought permission of the Court tofile a fresh petition on the same cause of action, butpermission was denied by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt. Therefore, the matter has become final at thelevel of Hon’ble Supreme Court after the passing ofthe order dated 1.9.1998.”

Through the present Letters Patent Appeal, the appellanthas assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judgedated 28.3.2007 dismissing CWP No.16989 of 1999. Theappellant has argued the instant appeal by himself. Hissolitary claim is, that he is fighting for justice, and thatjustice should be granted to him. He prays that the samebenefits, as were allowed to one of his colleagues JaswantSingh details whereof have been depicted in the openingparagraph of this order should be allowed to him as well.We have been trying to explain to the appellant that theorder passed by this Court in CWP No. 5047 of 1997,decided on 6.3.1998, having attained finality it was not opento the appellant to approach this Court, and that the learned

7




Single judge was fully justified in dismissing CWP No. 16989of 1999 vide order dated 28.3.2007. He was not onlydisinclined to accept any advice at our hands, he alsoexpressed that he was not being afforded an opportunity ofhearing to make out his case on merit. We have also perusedthe replication filed by the appellant by way of affidavitwherein serious aspersions have been cast by the appellantnot only against the opposing counsel, but also against theHon’ble Judge who decided CWP No.5047 of 1997.Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the replication depicting theaccusation levelled by the appellant are being extractedhereunder:

‘‘That the contents of the para are admitted.However, it is pertinent to mention few facts aboutthis case. That Mr. P.S. Patwalia had appeared andargued for respondent No.2 but on the Judgementof 6.3.98 name of Mr. Namit Kumar appears. Thisproves complicity of Mr. Justice V.K. Bali and Mr.P.S. Patwalia. That this judgement was influencedand that the respondent No.2 had in its writtenstatement in this case had never claimed thatJaswant Singh was promoted on merits yet it wasdecided that Jaswant Singh was promoted on merits.That in the present Writ petition also respondentNo.2 has not claimed in any part of its WrittenStatement that respondent No.3 Jaswant Singh waspromoted on merits. That SATYAMEV JAYATE(Truth shall triumph) is basic/fundamental principalof our Judiciary. That aggrieved by this judgementpetitioner also filed complaints to H.E. The Presidentof Indian Republic against Mr. Justice V.K. Bali andMr. P.S. Patwalia.“That the contents of this para of, writ petition are

8

Justice Disgraced40



reitrated. That the respondent No. 2 has notspecifically denied that respondent bank’s firstPromotions Policy was framed and notified on12.4.1984 and that Jaswant Singh respondent No. 3was promoted on 15.12.1983 i.e. five months beforethe policy is notified, by giving him the benefits ofmilitary service. That he superceded more than 700senior and more meritorious officers who were,promoted after 13 to 14 years. That new fitmentdoes not permit/allow automatic promotions andextra several increments. That this factual and legalarguments were argued before Hon’ble Mr. JusticeV.K. Bali, who preferred to ignore it under theinfluence of Mr. P.S. Patwalia,advocate for respondentNo. 2.”

We have highlighted the relevant assertions containedin the aforesaid two paragraphs.

In the first instance, it is imperative for us to adjudicateupon the merits of the instant appeal. Having given ourthoughtful consideration to the aforesaid primary issue, weare satisfied, that there can be no exception to theconclusion drawn by the learned single Judge in his orderdated 28.3.2007, which has been extracted herein above.The hearing of this case has taken over half an hour ofprecious time. The appellant has unnecessarily wasted Courttime. He has without basis and foundation, levelledaccusations against the opposite counsel, he has also notspared the Hon’ble Presiding Judge who had disposed ofCWP No. 5047 of 1997, vide order dated 6.3.1998. In thepeculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfiedthat the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed with costs.The instant appeal is accordingly dismissed with costsquantified at Rs. 10,000/- The aforesaid costs shall be

9




deposited by the appellant with the Legal Service Committeeof this Court within one month from today failing which theRegistry is directed to relist this case for motion hearing forrecovery of the aforesaid costs.

Sd/-J.S. Khehar

Judge

May 25, 2009 Augustine George MasihJudge

10

Justice Disgraced42




(ORDER XVI RULE 4 (1) (a) )CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETTION(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

Special leave Petition No.................

WITH PYAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEFBETWEEN POSITION OF THE PARTIES

In the High Courtorder the petitionarises :

Baldev Singh, Ex-Officer, Petitioner – 1 Petitioner – 1PSB, A-32, Sector 50,Noida 201, 301 (U.P.) ..............Petitioner

AND

1. Union of India through Respondent No 1 Respondent No1The Secretary (Banking),Ministry of Finance,(Banking Division),Govt. Of India,New Delhi

2. Chairman and M.D. Respondent No 2 Respondent No 2Punjab and Sind Bank,21, Rajindera Place,New Delhi 110 008

3. Mr Jaswant Singh, Respondent No 3 Respondent No 3Ex-Manager, c/o,Punjab and Sind Bank,Personnel Deptt.New Delhi 110 008 Contesting Respondents

In this Hon’bleCourt;

160/10

11




ToThe Hon’ble Chief Justice of India,And his companion justices of theHon’ble Supreme Court of India

The humble petition ofthe petitionerabovenamed.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :1. That the petitioner is preferring the present Special

Leave to Appeal against the judgement and final order dated25.5.09 passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of Punjab andHaryana High Court at Chandigarh in the matter of LPA No.292/08 in CWP No. 16989/99 where by the Hon’ble HighCourt has been pleased to dismiss the LPA on the groundof maintainability and not on merits. That the Hon’ble HighCourt has also imposed costs on the petitioner although thecase was remanded back to Hon’ble High Court on thedirections of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed on 29.8.08 inthe matter of SLP (C) No. 18239/07 (Annexure P-15)

That the petitioner is senior citizen of India, his dateof birth being 12.12.1944, is competent to file the SpecialLeave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of Indiaagainst the impugned judgement and final Order dated25.5.09.

QUESTIONS OF LAW :2. That the following questions of law arises for the

kind consideration of this Hon’ble Court :a) Whether the action of the respondent No. 2 in

granting military service benefits to ex-servicemenre-employed in respondent Bank, including JaswantSingh, respondent No. 3, and denying the same

12

Justice Disgraced44



to the petitioner is not discriminatory and violatesarticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India ?

b) Whether the action of respondent No. 2 ingranting promotions twice and giving severalextra increments to Jaswant Singh, respondentNo. 3, once before nationalisation of the Bank on6.2.1980 and second time on 15.12.83, afternationalisation of the Bank. Thus he hadsuperceded over 700 of senior and moremeritorious officers, giving him his 24 years ofmilitary service benefits, in gross violation ofpromotions regulation 17 of PSB (O) SR-82 anddenying the same benefits to the petitoner is notillegal and violates Articles 14 and 16 of theConstitution of India ?

c) Whether the action of the respondent No. 2 isnot illegal and arbitrary in not following theHon’ble High Court’s Order dt. 23.5.94 in CWP No.5998/88 (Annexure P-6) and rejecting the case ofthe petitioner wrongly and also not following theonly legal remedy to file an appeal in Hon’ble HighCourt or Hon’ble Supreme Court against the Orderdt. 23.5.94 ?

d) Whether the OFFICE NOTE OF PROMOTION ofJaswant Singh, respondent No. 3, when clearlyadmits that he had served in the Army for 24 yearswas not the ground for his promotions ? That thesame office note is reproduced as under :

The Punjab and Sind Bank Ltd.(Regd. Office, Hall Bazar, Amritsar)

Sir,Reg. S. Jaswant Singh—officer B/o Meerut. Theabove named joined our bank as officer on3.12.76. Before joining our bank he was in IndianArmy and served there about 24 years in different

13




capacities. He is about 50 years old and he is amatured officer.He has been rated as good officer in confidentialreport for the last three years. He has capacity toshoulder higher responsibilities.Looking into facts stated above, We are of theopinion that he may be given a chance to workas Sub-Manager at B/o Meerut.

Submitted for approval.Sd/-

30.1.80that he was given several extra increments, paidlarge amount of arrears and superceded 700 of hismore meritorious and senior officers ? Thatwhether the respondent No 2 can deny thatmilitary service was not consideration for hispromotion and other benefits ?

e) Whether Regulation 16(1) of the Punjab and SindBank Ltd-1979 is not wrongly interpreted byHon’ble High Court when it says,“PROMOTIONS up to Grade II will be made on thebasis of merit having due consideration toseniority. Promotions to Grade – III and aboveshall be made entirely on merits”.That the paramount consideration up to Grade-IIis seniority. That how a Junior Jaswant Singhcould supercede 700 of his senior and moremeritorious officers, if military service benefitswere not given to him ?

f) Whether the granting of promotions as Manager(placed in Grade Scale-II) to Jaswant Singh,respondent No 2, by the respondent No. 2, on15.12.83 almost five months before Bank’s firstpromotions policy is notified on 12.4.84 under

14

Justice Disgraced46



regulation 17 is not illegal and liable to bequashed if military service benefits were not theconsideration for his promotion ? That the sameregulations 17 is as under :

“17(1) promotions to all Grades of officers inthe Bank shall be made in accordance withthe policy laid down by the Board from timeto time, having regard to Guidelines of theGovernment, if Any.”

That while rejecting the claim of the petitionerabove mentioned regulation was mentioned andit was said that new fitment was reason for hispromotion on 15.12.83. That the new fitment wasfor all officers including petitioner but onlyJaswant was promoted on 15.12.83. That therespondent No 2’s rejection of petitioner’s claimwas false, wrong and illegal (Annexure P-7). Thatthe new fitment dealt with regulations 7,12,12(2)and 13 but not 17 at all. That whether action ofthe respondent No 2 is not illegal ?

g) Whether the action of the respondent No. 1 and 2in granting the weightage of military service tothe ECO’s/SSCO’s while denying to the OTHERRANKS who joined the military service at the callof National Emergency in 1963 along withEmergency Commissioned officers/short ServiceCommissioned officers and similarly placed/situated is discriminatory and violated Articles 14and 16 of the Constitution of India ?

h) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefitsas given to the similarly placed/situated as ECO's/SSCO's who had joined the Bank's service afterrelease from military service as direct officer in theBank as given in Bank's Ciruclar dated 13.12.86(Annexure P-4)

15




3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4 (2)That the petitioner has not filed any other petition and

is pending seeking leave to appeal against the impugnedjudgement and final order of Punjab and Haryana HighCourt dt. 25.5.09 in the matter of LPA No 292/08 in CWPNo. 16989/99, in this Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6That the Annexures P-1 to P-17 produced along with

the SLP(C) are true copies of the documents which formedpart of the record of the case LPA No 292/08 in CWP No.16989/99 in Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court atChandigarh, against whose impugned judgement and finalorder dt. 25.5.09 the leave to appeal is sought for in thispetition.

5. GROUNDS :I) Because the Hon’ble D.B. of the High Court has

erred and dismissed the LPA NO. 292/08 in CWPNo. 16989/99 without going into the merits of thecase and passed the impugned order dt. 25.5.09dismissing the appeal on ground of maintainabilityalthough the case was remanded back to HighCourt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its orderdt. 29.8.08. (Annexure P-15)

II) Because the High Court has erred not to appreciatethat the respondent No 2 had not filed any reply/written statement in LPA No 292/08 in CWP No.16989/99, therefore, admitted the facts of thecase. That respondent No. 1 and 3 had never eversubmitted any written statement, therefore, hadnever contested the case.

iii) Because the Hon’ble High Court has erred to

16

Justice Disgraced48



ignore the averments of the petitioner on law andthe facts in the case and did not decide the caseon merits.

iv) Because Hon’ble D.B. of Punjab and Haryana HighCourt while passing the final order dt. 25.5.09has erred and failed to take note of orderpassed by another Hon’ble D.B. on 27.2.09 whileissuing Notice of Motion. That the same order isAnnexure P-17. That no material change hadtaken place because the respondent No. 2 had notfiled any reply to the Notice issued by Hon’bleHigh Court in the case.

v) Because the Hon’ble D.B. of the High Court hadadmitted in its impugned order dt. 25.5.09 thatthe respondent No 3, Jaswant Singh had beengiven military service benefits but had not passedorder on merits but dismissed on ground ofmaintainability therefore, erred in deciding thecase in accordance with the law.

vi) Because the Hon’ble High Court has erredin imposing costs on the petitioner for seekingjustice and had filed LPA No 292/08 onthe directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtdt 29.8.08 (Annexure P-15). That the costs wouldbe imposed on petitioner was told by Hon’blepresiding Judge to the petitioner at the outsetbefore petitioner had started his arguments in thecase.

vii) Because the Hon’ble High Court erred in notappreciating the averments of the petitioner thathis advocate in Hon’ble Supreme Court had notincluded seven vital points in his SLP (C)No. 12773/98 therefore, had to write him a letter(Annexure P-12) to withdraw the SLP with the

17




permission to file fresh petition IN PERSON butadvocate misrepresented the case in Court and thepetitioner could not enter the Court Room due tosecurity reasons and tell the Hon’ble Court InPERSON about the complicity of my advocate.That the petitioner REGD. Letter to advocate isAnnexure P-12 with this SLP.

viii) Because the Hon’ble D.B. of the High Courthas erred and wrongly refers to allowedpetition on merits as “disposed of”. That the CWPno 5998/88 was allowed on merits on 23.5.94(Annexure P-6) with specific directions that ifJaswant Singh is given military service benefitsthen the petitioner’s case/claim be considered.That meaning of “disposed of ” and allowed onmerits are different in legal parlance. That wrongword used or wrong interpretation of a word cancause serious damage to the petitioner.

ix) Bacause the Hon’ble D.B. of the High Court erredto ignore the directions of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt dt 29.8.08 in SLP (C) No. 18239/07 that thepetitioner’s case was remanded back to HighCourt, therefore, the LPA No. 292/08 in CWP No16989/99 was filed on the directions of the ApexCourt but Hon’ble presiding judge, when thecase was called for hearing, warned the petitionerthat, “you are exploiting judicial process. We aregoing to make you pay heavy costs.” This wasbefore petitioner could open his mouth. AndRs. 10000/- is costs imposed on petitioner forseeking justice from the court of justice.

x) Because the Hon’ble High Court erred not torecognise the right of petitioner to seek justice onmerits, which is fundamental in our legaljurisprudence.

18

Justice Disgraced50



xi) Because the Hon’ble High Court erred not toappreciate the arguments of the petitioner thatrespondent No. 2 has failed to appeal against thejudgement and final order dt. 23.5.94 in CWP No.5998/88 in either High Court or the SupremeCourt the legal remedy available to the respondentNo 2, therefore, the order dt. 23.5.94 stands goodfor the petitioner and thus he is seeking itsimplementation through judicial process inaccordance with the law.

xii) Because Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciatethat respondent No 1 and 3 never ever submittedwritten statement, therefore, admitted that JaswantSingh, respondent No 3, military service benefitswhile promoting him on 6.2.80 and 15.12.83.

xiii) Because the Hon’ble High Court has erred inmaking wrong interpretations of the facts andignoring material legal issue involved in terms ofregulation 17 of the Punjab and Sind Bank(officers) Service Regulation – 1982 in its orderdt. 6.3.98 in CWP No. 5047/97. That regulation 17is as under :

“Reg. 17 (1). Promotions to all grades ofofficers in the Bank shall be made inaccordance with the policy laid down by theBoard from time to time, having regard to theGuidelines of the Govt. If any.”

That Jaswant Singh, respondent No. 3, waspromoted on 15.12.83 and promotion policyframed on 12.4.84.

xiv) Because the Hon’ble D.B. of the High Court haserred not to appreciate that the respondent No 2LPA No. 292/08 in CWP No 16989/99, therefore,no document has been filed to claim any relief in

19




terms of Sec. 1-A of order VIII nor has deniedanything in the Appeal specifically and cannotclaim any relief in terms of Sec. 3 of Order VIIIof the CPC.

xv) Because the Hon’ble D.B. to the High Court haserred not to appreciate petitioner’s averment thatthe respondent No 2, in its written statements hadnever claimed that Jaswant Singh, respondentNo. 3 was ever promoted on merits on 6.2.80 and15.12.83 and superceded 700 of his senior andmore meritorious officers and gave him largeamount of arrears. That new fitment does not dealwith regulation 17 at all. That the fitment was forall the officers including petitioner but onlyJaswant Singh was promoted on 15.12.83 andnone other. That the only consideration for thepromotion of Jaswant Singh was his 24 yearlymilitary service benefits.

xvi) Because the Hon’ble High Court erred not toconsider the petitioner’s averment that those whojoined the Armed Forces at the call of NationalEmergency are not denied the military servicebenefits, when the similar benefits are extendedto ECO’s/SSCO’s in terms of Bank’s own Circular(Annexure P-4). It violates Articles 14 and 16 ofthe Constitution of India.

xvii) Because the Hon’ble Supreme court in similar caseof National Emergency service benefits havealready laid down law in favour of the petitionerand the Hon’ble High Court for not granting thebenefits has erred and violated Article 141 of theConstitution of India.

xviii) Because the Hon’ble High Court has erred in itsruling dt. 6.3.98 in CWP No 5047/97 that, “there

20

Justice Disgraced52



is no rule of giving military service benefits to anyone in the Bank service as such.” That the Hon’bleD.B. has not taken note of Bank’s own Circularsof 18.9.86, 17.11.86 and 13.12.86 which providefor military service benefits to Ex-servicemen re-employed in Bank’s service. That proves howcasual approach was adopted while deciding thecase aforementioned.

xix) Because the remedy of appeal needs to be decidedon merits in the interest of justice and not ontechnicality of maintainability. That the lawprovides for justice to be delivered on merits ofthe case.

6. GROUND FOR INTERIM RELIEF :Because the Hon’ble High Court in its impugned order

dt. 25.5.09 in LPA No. 292/08 in CWP No. 16989/99 hasimposed costs of Rs. 10000/- on the petitioner for arguinghis case on merits on the directions of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt’s order dt. 29.8.08 in SLP (C) No. 18239/07 has erredand not obeyed the Hon’ble Apex Court’s directions. Thatthe petitioner has made out the prima facie case and thebalance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioner,if the ex-parte relief interim as prayed is granted to thepetitioner, otherwise the petitioner will suffer irreparableinjury.

7. MAIN PRAYER :In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and

in the interest of justice it is most humbly prayed. YourLordship, may graciously be pleased to grant Special Leaveto Appeal to the petitioner against the judgement andfinal order dt. 25.5.09 in LPA No. 292/08 in CWP No.16989/99 passed by Hon’ble D.B. of Punjab and Haryana

21




High Court at Chandigarh, and pass any such order/direction which your Lordship may deem fit and proper inthe interest of justice.

8. INTERIM RELIEF :It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Supreme Court may kindly be pleased to stay theoperation of judgement and final order dt. 25.5.09 in thematter of LPA No. 292/08 in CWP No. 16989/99 passed byHon’ble D.B. of Punjab and Haryana High Court withoutgoing into the merits of the case but dismissed on the groundof maintainability and imposed costs of Rs 10000/- on thepetitioner inspite of Hon’ble Supreme Court remanding thecase back to Hon’ble High Court in its Order dt. 29.8.08 inSLP (C) No. 18239/97 (Annexure P-15), and pass such orderas this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in this caseand circumstances of the case.

That the petitioner is of about 65 years of age his dateof birth being 12.12.1944, is a senior citizen, this Hon’bleCourt may consider early hearing of the case.

Date : August 12, 2009Place : New Delhi Petitioner-in-Person

22

Justice Disgraced54




SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.........../09

IN THE MATTER OF :

Baldev Singh ..........................Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and ors. .......................Respondents

CERTIFICATE“Certified that Special Leave Petition is confined only

to the pleadings before the Court/Tribunal whose order ischallenged and other documents relied upon in thoseproceedings. No additional facts, documents or groundshave been taken therein or relied upon in the Special LeavePetition. It is further certified that copies of the Annexures/documents attached to the Special Leave Petition isnecessary to answer the question of law raised in the petitionfor the consideration or to make out grounds urged in theSpecial Leave Petition for consideration of this Hon’bleCourt. This Certificate is given by the petitioner and thepetitioner whose affidavit is filed in support of the S.L.P.”

filed by

New Delhi (Baldev Singh)Date : August 2, 2009 PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

23





S.L.P. (C) NO.............................../09

IN THE MATTER OF :

Baldev Singh ................Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and ors ...........Respondents

AFFIDAVITI, Baldev Singh S/o Late S. Kartar Singh Presently residingat A-32, Sector 50, Noida 2010301 do hereby solemnlydeclare and affirm on oath as under :

1. That I am the petitioner in the above mentionedcase, therefore, fully conversant with the facts, lawand the circumstances of the case.

2. That the accompanying SLP (C) has been drafted byme. The contents are fully understood by me. Thefacts given therein are true to my knowledge andlegal submissions are based on my knowledge.

3. That the SLP (C) contains from pages 9 to 24 andpara 1 to 8 and impugned judgement and order dt.25.5.09 from page 1 to 8 in the matter of LPA No.292/08 in CWP No. 16989/99 and total pages of theSLP (C) contain 75 pages.

4. That the Annexures P-1 to P-17 are true copies oftheir respective originals.

DEPONENTThat the contents of this affidavit are true and correct

to my knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing materialhas been kept concealed therefrom.

VERIFIED AT New Delhi DEPONENT12th of August, 09

24

Justice Disgraced56



The Punjab and Sind Bank Ltd.(Regd. Office, Hall Bazar, Amritsar)

Sir,Reg : Jaswant Singh – officer B/o MeerutThe Above named joined our bank as officer on

3.12.76. Before Joining our bank he was in Indian Army andserved there about 24 years in different capacities. He isabout 50 years old and is a matured officer.

He has been rated as good officer in the confidentialreport for last three years. He has capacity to shoulderhigher responsibilities.

Looking into facts stated above, we are of the opinionthat he may be given a chance to work as Sub-Manager atB/o Meerut.

Submitted for approval.Sd/-

30.1.80True copyPetitioner

Annexure P-125




THE PUNJAB AND SIND BANK LTD

Staff/RO 809/8 to 10 6.2.1980The ManagerThe Punjab and Sind Bank Ltd.Meerut.

Dear Sir,Reg. S. Jaswant Singh OfficerIt has been decided to promote the above named as

Sub-Manager and post him as such at your office withimmediate effect. His revised emoluments as Sub-Managerwill be advised to you seprately.

Please note and inform him accordingly.

Yours faithfully,Sd/-

Senior Manager (Personnel)

StaffCC : 1. Area Manager, C Zone (II) for information.CC : 2. Dy. General Manager, C. Zone, for information.

Sd/-Senior Manager (personnel)

True CopyPetitioner

Annexure P-226

Justice Disgraced58



REGD.

The Executive Director,Punjab and Sind Bank,21, Rajindera place,New Delhi 110 008.

REG. BENEFITS TO EX-SERVICEMEN

Dear Sir,I am an Ex-serviceman. I had applied for benefits

entitled to Ex-servicemen on 20.2.96 to DGM (Personnel)but it was not replied. I made another representation on12.8.86 Manager (Personnel) vide its letter No. RO/1971/866/9980 dated 5.9.86 asked for certificate of pension andlast pay drawn, which are already given in my dischargecertificate of which photocopy was submitted along with myrepresentation dt. 20.2.96. However, I submitted in writingagain on 12.9.86 (copy enclosed) but no reply has beenreceived till date.

I enclose, herewith again photocopy of my dischargecertificate from the IAF. Last Salary drawn is at col no. 24on page 10 and at page 14 and 15. It is shown that I wasdischarged with gratuity otherwise at my own request aftercompleting 9 years of regular service, therefore, no pensionis being paid to me.

I may here add that I was serving as an Airman in theIAF. I therefore, request your goodself for early release ofadditional increments and other benefits entitled to me as anEx-serviceman and already given to other officers in the Bank.

Yours faithfully.12.12.86 (Baldev Singh) officer,

Regional office, PSB, Faridkot 151 203True Cop yPetitioner

Annexure P-327




PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

Staff Cir. No. 1626 21, Rajindera Place,New Delhi, 110 008

All Branches/offices 13.12.86

REG : FITMENT OF BASIC PAY OF EX-ECO’S/SSCO’SEMPLOYED IN PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS

In terms of Govt. Of India. Ministry of Finance andIndian Bank’s Association, Bombay’s guidelines, the followingpolicy for extending the benefit to fixation of pay to Ex-ECO’S/SSCO’S has been adopted.

1. While the pay of existing Ex-ECO’s/SSCO’s whojoined the bank before 24.8.81, they will be notionally fitted,as from the date of their appointment, in the lowest scaleof pay applicable to the officers of the bank, at theappropriate stage after giving the benefit of increments onaccount of their past service in defence. Therefore, they willget their past service increments for the service in the bankin that scale and fitment in higher scale, of promoted as perrules in force in the bank. On coming into force of PSB(O)SR-1982, they will be notionally fitted in the new scale ofpay as on 1.7.79 as per rules applicable, in Scale I and givenincrements for service till 31.3.80. The basic pay so arrivedat will be compared with the basic pay of officer on 1.4.80,The officers would be entitled to basic pay on 1.4.80. whichwould not be less than notional basic pay so arrived atirrespective of scale in which they are fitted under the newregulations. Arrears if any, in this regard, will be payablefrom 1.4.80.

2. In the case of ECO’s/SSCO’s who joined the bank onor after 24.8.81, these benefits of fixation of pay after taking

Annexure P-428

Justice Disgraced60



into account their past service in Defence, on the lines ofprocedure mentioned in para (1) above will be restricted toofficers who joined pre-commissioned Training or wereCommissioned in the Armed Forces between 1.11.62 and10.1.68.

3. In addition to those ECO/s/SSCO’s covered underpara 2 above, those ECO’s/SSCO’s who joined Pre-Commissioned Training or were Commissioned after 10.1.68will be granted advance increments equal to completedyears of service rendered in the Armed Forces on a basic pay(inclusive of deferred pay but excluding other emoluments)equal to higher than the minimum of scale attached to thescale in which they are placed. The pay so arrived at shouldnot however, exceed the basic pay (including the deferredpay but excluding of other emoluments) last drawn by themin the Armed Forces. This will take effect from 1.11.84.

We have allowed the benefits of increments to Ex-ECO’s/SSCO’s on account of their past service in Defence inScale-I of our Bank at time 300-25-475-30-655EB30-775-35-845-40-965. However, as a matter of practice, we weregiving a starting basic of Rs 425/- to all officers at that time.If any officer is eligible to avail the benefit under the schemehe may send his representation along with full facts to H.O.Personnel Deptt., through proper channel.

This Circular may be displayed on the Notice Board ofthe Branch/office.

Sd/-Dy. General Manager (Personnel)

Ture CopyPetitioner

29




PUNJAB AND SIND BANK(A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING)

RO/866/19222 Dated 22/12/86

The Regional ManagerPunjab and Sind Bank,Faridkot.

REG. S. Baldev Singh—Officer

Dear SirWe are in reciept of a representation dt. 12.12.86 of

the above named addressed to the Executive Director andhave noted its contents.

In this context please note as per Staff Cir No. 1592dated 18.9.86, he is not entitled to any additionalincrements or any other benefits of his service in ArmedForces. Because his last salary drawn has already beenprotected.

He may be informed accordingly, further he may beadvised to send his representation in future, through properchannel only.

Yours faithfullySd/-

(Manager) PersonnelTrue CopyPetitioner

Annexure P-530

Justice Disgraced62



PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ATCHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No. 5998 of 1988Dated the 23rd May 1994

PRESENTTHE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.C. GARG,

For the Petitioner : Mr. Baldev Singh, Petitioner in PersonFor the Respondent :

Mr. I.S. Bajwa, Advocate for respondent No. 2

ORDERG.C. GARG, J

Petitioner is an ex-serviceman. He served the Indian AirForce from January 29, 1963 to January 28, 1972 as aCombatant Member of the said Force. He was selected as anofficer in the Punjab and Sind Bank in the category of ex-servicemen on March 11, 1977 and was confirmed as suchon March 12, 1978. The Punjab and Sind Bank wasnationalized in the year 1980. The claim of the petitioner isthat he was entitled to the benefit of military service in thesame terms as had been granted by the said bank to oneJaswant Singh who was directly appointed as an officer inthe Bank after being released from the armed forces. Thegrouse of the petitioner is that he has been discriminated inthe matter of grant of such benefits which have been deniedto him by the bank. In para 10 of the writ petition, thepetitioner made a specific averment to the following effect:

“Even one of the other ranker Shri Jaswant Singhwho was directly appointed as Officer was granted‘weightage’ of military service and promoted to thenext higher rank long back.”

Annexure P-631




Respondent No.2 filed a written statement and tookstand that the petitioner was not entitled to thebenefit of military service. Averments as made inpara 10 of the writ petition were denied as under :“Contents of para 10 are wrong and denied. Thepetitioner is wrongly claiming the benefit granted toECOs, and SSCOs who are not in the same class asthe petitioner is. The Petitioner had worked only asan Airman and had been relieved from the servicesin the year 1972. Thereafter as an independentoutside candidate, he had joined the services of thebank in the year 1977. Though the bank was aprivate body at that time, it had given the time ofhis joining. The cases cited in this paragraph are ona completely different footing.”

Contention of the petitioner is that the averments madeby him in the writ petition in respect of Jaswant Singh havenot been denied. According to the petitioner in fact JaswantSingh who is shown at the serial Number 753 of the senioritylist of the Managers Middle Management Grade Scale-II,was granted the benefit of military service whereas the samehas been denied to him though he is similarly situated asthe said Jaswant Singh. The particulars of Jaswant Singhshown at Sr. No. 753 in the seniority list aforesaid are asfollows :Name Date of Appointed Promoted Date of

Birth as Officer as Sub placementManager in Scale II

Jaswant 19.3.1930 3.12.1976 6.2.1980 5.12.1983Singh

After hearing learned counsel for the respondents andthe petitioner in person. I find that the contention has merit.The respondent-bank has not denied in any part of itswritten statement that aforesaid Jaswant Singh had not

32

Justice Disgraced64



been granted the benefit of Military Service nor has it beenbrought out therein that the case of the petitioner is requiredto be considered for the grant of benefit of military servicein the same manner as was granted to said Jaswant Singhunless he stood on a different footing.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed with thedirection to the respondent bank to consider the claim ofthe petitioner for the grant of benefit of military service formthe due date if the aforesaid Jaswant Singh had beengranted benefits of such service and he (Jaswant Singh)belonged to the category of ex-serviceman like the petitioner.Let the claim of the petitioner as aforesaid be consideredwithin a period of six months and if he is found entitled tosuch benefits, the same shall be released to him within thenext three months. No Order as to costs.

May 23, 1994 Sd/Words 1400 G.C. Garg,

Judge

True CopyPetitioner

33





H.O. Personnel Deptt.Ref. Staff/Off/2703/94 Dated 27.9.94

Mr Baldev SinghOfficer,Punjab and Sind Bank,B.O. Batala Road, Amritsar.

Dear Sir,In pursuance to the Orders dated 23.5.94 of the Hon’ble

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CivilWrit Petition No. 5998 of 1988, the matter was consideredby the Bank. The operative portion of the judgement of theHon’ble High Court is reproduced here below :

“In the circumstances, I am of the view that the caseof the petitioner is required to be considered for the grantof benefit of military service in the same manner as wasgranted to said Jaswant Singh unless he stood on a differentfooting.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed with thedirection to the respondent-bank to consider the claim of thepetitioner for the grant of benefit of military service fromthe due date if the aforesaid Jaswant Singh had beengranted military service and he (Jaswant Singh) belongedto the category of Ex-serviceman, like the petitioner. Let theclaim of the petitioner as aforesaid be considered within aperiod of six months and if he is found entitle to suchbenefits, the same shall be released to him within the nextthree months. No order as to costs.”

Since no benefit of services rendered by Sh. JaswantSingh, Manager (since retired form the services of the Bank)

Annexure P-734

Justice Disgraced66



with Armed Forces, was given either while placing himas Sub-manager w.e.f. 6.2.1980, or in placing him inscale-II on fitment on introduction of the New ServiceRegulations viz. Punjab and Sind Bank Officers’ ServiceRegulations, 1982 or in the matter of promotion, we regretto inform that ‘no benefit of services rendered by you withAir Force can be given to you in the matter of saidplacement, fitment or promotion.’

Please also note that after nationalization of the Bankon 15.4.1980, the service conditions of officer employees aregoverned by Punjab and Sind Bank Officers ServiceRegulations, 1982. The Service Regulations are statutory innature as framed by the Board of Directors of the Bank inexercise of the powers conferred on them by Section 19 ofthe Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer ofUndertakings) Act, 1980. the promotions of officers fromone grade to another are governed by Regulation 17 of thesaid Service Regulations. The Promotion Policy is alsoframed by the Board of Directors of the Bank having regardto the Govt. guidelines in exercise of the statutory powersconferred on them. No benefit of service in Armed Forcesis to be extended in promotion of officers, from one gradeto other in terms of the said statutory , promotion policyof the bank, framed under the said Regulation l7 of theOfficers Service Regulations, 1982.

Please take note of the above and acknowledge receipton the duplicate here of.

Yours FaithfullyH.S. NandhaDEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL)

Note : Readers will notice that same promotion regulation 17 mentionedin last para is violated and Jaswant Singh promoted on 15.12.83and new fitment does not deal with this regulation. Details in SLPpara XIII and XV, Page 51 and 52, respectively.

35




REGD.

Chairman and Managing Director,Punjab and Sind Bank,21, Rajindera Place,New Delhi, 110 008

Dear Sir,

REG. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ORDER OFMAY 23, 1994 NOT IMPLEMENTED

DGM (Personnel), New Delhi has informed me videletter No. 3991 dt. 14.3.95 that letter No 2703 dt. 27.4.94was sent to me by REGD. Post. I may inform you that nosuch letter was delivered to me. The matter should beenquired into and action taken in the matter.

2. However, going by the contents of the DGM(P)’sletter dt. 27.9.94 I may inform you that part of Punjab andHaryana High Court Order has been quoted out of context.Complete Order dt. 23.5.94 is operative and no part of it.Most important part of it is concealed by DGM(P). I Quote.

“After hearing learned counsel for the respondentand petitioner in person, I find that the contents hasmerit. The respondent bank has not denied in anypart of its written statement that aforesaid JaswantSingh had not been granted the benefits of militaryservice nor it has been brought out that the case ofJaswant Singh stood on different footing than thepetitioner.”

I also bring into your kind notice that if Mr. JaswantSingh was not given the benefits of military service then howMr. Jaswant Singh was promoted on 6.2.80 and placed in

Annexure P-836

Justice Disgraced68



scale-II on 15.12.83 when senior to him were promoted in1993 and 1994 after a gap of over 13 years.

3. There is serious attempt to conceal the truth.4. I may further inform you that I had joined the Indian

Air Force at the call of National Emergency and thesebenefits are not denied to any one.

5. I shall wait for 15 days for implementation of Punjaband Haryana High Court order dt. 23.5.94 otherwise I shallproceed with the appropriate action in the matter.

With regards.Yours Faithfully

19.3.95 (Baldev Singh)officer,

B.O. Batala Road,Amritsar.

True CopyPetitioner

37





(A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING)

H.O. Personnel Deptt. Bank House21, Rajindera Place,

New Delhi,Ref. 23 Dated 5.4.1995

Sh. Baldev Singh,Officer,Punjab and Sind Bank,B.O. Batala Road, Amritsar.

Dear Sir,REG. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ORDER

Dated 23.5.94

We are in receipt of your letter dated 19.3.95 on thecaptioned subject.

The decision taken by the bank in deference to the orderdt. 23.5.94 of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryanain Civil writ Petition No. 5998/1988, after due considerationof the matter, was conveyed to you vide our REGD. LetterNo. 2073 dated 27.9.94. A copy of the said letter dated27.9.94, along with photocopy of P.O. Patel Nagar, NewDelhi postal receipt No. 3730 of 3.10.94, was sent again toyou along with our regd. Letter No 3991 dated 14.3.95.

The accusation levelled and contentions raised by youin your letter dated 19.3.1995 are wrong and misconceived.

We reitrate our earlier decision conveyed vide ouraforesaid letter of 27.9.94 in this regard.

Yours faithfully,Sd/- Dy. Gen. Manager (P)

True CopyPetitioner

Annexure P-938

Justice Disgraced70




COCP No. 523/1995 (O & M)Baldev Singh .......................Petitioner

Versus

K.S. Bains ..........................Respondent

Present :Mr G.S. Grewal, Sr. Advocate with TPS Mann, Adv.Mr. S.S. Nijjer, Sr. Advocate with Rohit Ahuja Adv.

ORDERWrit Petition filed by Baldev Singh was allowed by

order dated May 23, 1994, with the direction to the bankto consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of benefitsof military service from due date. In compliance with theorder of this court the claim of the petitioner was consideredand rejected.

The grievance of the petitioner in the contempt petitionis that his case is precisely the same as that of Jaswant Singhand he has been wrongly denied the relief. Be that as it may,it is not necessary to go into this question in contemptproceedings. The Order of this court has been compliedwith. It will, however, be open to the petitioner to challengethe order declining him the benefit of military service inappropriate proceedings according to law.

10.10.95 Sd/-G.C. Garg

JudgeTrue CopyPetitioner

Annexure P-1039




C.W.P. No. 5047 Of 1997Baldev SinghVSUnion of India and ors.

Dt. The 6th March, 1998

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. BaliThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.L. SinghalPresent : Petitioner in Person

Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate

V.K. Bali. J. (Oral)Baldev Singh, an officer of the Stationary Department,

Punjab and Sind Bank, through present petition filed by himunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks issuanceof writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondentsto grant him the benefit of military service at the call ofNational Emergency by way of fixation of his pay after grantof increments and seniority for the purpose of promotionsas granted to the ECOs/SSCOs appointed as officers in theBank and other similarly situated persons.

Brief facts, on which the relief asked for, is sought torest, reveal that petitioner was appointed directly as Officerwith the respondent Bank on March 11, 1977. He wasconfirmed in service on March 12, 1978. Way back in 1986petitioner applied for grant of ex-serviceman benefits andwhen even after the long correspondence that ensured forthat purpose, petitioner got no relief, he filed a Civil WritPetition in this Court. The said writ petition came to bedecided on May 23, 1994 by a learned Single Judge of thisCourt. Operative part of the said judgement reads this :

“After hearing learned counsel for the respondentsand the petitioner in person. I find that the

Annexure P-1140

Justice Disgraced72



contention has merit. The respondent-bank has notdenied in any part of its written statement thataforesaid Jaswant Singh had not been granted thebenefit of Military Service nor has it been broughtout therein that the case of Jaswant stood on adifferent footing than the petitioner. In thecircumstances, I am of the view that the case of thepetitioner is required to be considered for the grantof benefit of military service in the same manner aswas granted to said Jaswant Singh unless he stoodon a different footing.Consequently, the writ petition is allowed with thedirection to the respondent bank to consider the claimof the petitioner for the grant of benefit of militaryservice from the due date if the aforesaid JaswantSingh had been granted benefits of such service andhe (Jaswant Singh) belonged to the category of ex-serviceman like the petitioner. Let the claim of thepetitioner as aforesaid be considered within a periodof six months and if he is found entitled to suchbenefits, the same shall be released to him within thenext three months. No order as to costs.

On consideration of the matter by the concernedauthorities as directed by this Court, the petitioner lost hiscause and, therefore, the present writ.

At this stage, all that has been contended by thepetitioner, who appears in person, is that judgement datedMay 23, 1994 is binding between the parties and whenJaswant Singh was granted the military service benefits,respondent Bank had no option but to grant the samebenefits to the petitioner as well.

Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, respondentNo. 2 entered defense and opposed the cause of thepetitioner. It has, inter-alia, been pleaded that no benefits

41




of military service were given to Jaswant Singh and,therefore, the case of petitioner was rightly rejected videorders dated September, 27, 1994 (Annexure P-13). At thetime when petitioner entered service of the respondentBank, the bank was in a private sector and later on the bankwas nationalized in the year 1980. No benefit of servicerendered by Jaswant Singh with the Armed Forces was givento him while placing him as Sub-Manager or in placing himin Scale II on fitment on introduction of new serviceregulations or in the matter of promotion. Afternationalization of the Bank on April 15, 1980, the serviceconditions of the officers employed by the Bank aregoverned by the Punjab and Sind Bank Officers ServiceRegulations, 1982. The service regulations were statutory innature as framed by the Board of Directors of the Bank inexercise of the powers conferred on them by Section 19 ofthe Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer ofUndertakings) Act, 1980. The promotions of Officers fromone grade to another were governed by Regulation 17 of thesaid service rules. The promotion policy is also framed bythe Board of Directors of the Bank having regard to theGovernment guidelines in exercise of the statutory powers.No benefit in service in Armed Forces was to be extendedin promotion of the officers from one grade to other in termsof the said statutory regulations.

In the light of the pleadings of the parties, as have beennoted above, the only question that needs to be determinedis as to whether Jaswant Singh had got the benefits ofMilitary Service and if so, as to whether the petitioner is alsoentitled to be said relief. Before we may comment upon thecontroversy involved in this case, as has been referred toabove, it requires to be mentioned that whatever order waspassed in favour of Jaswant Singh*, which we will laterdelve upon, the same came to be passed before the Bank

42

Justice Disgraced74



was nationalized and after the nationalization of the Bank,concededly, service conditions of the employees of the Bankare governed by the Regulations, as has been mentionedabove. Before there to, Regulations 13, 16 and 3E dealingwith appointment and promotion were as follows :

13. “All appointments in, and promotion to officersgrade shall be made by competent authority.16(1) Promotions upto grade II will be made on thebasis of merit having due regard to seniority.Promotions to Grade III and above shall be madeentirely on merit.3(e) Competent Authority means Chairman andChief Executive Officer of the Bank or any otherofficer designated for the purpose by him."

In so far as promotion upto Grade II is concerned, thesame is to be on the basis of merit having due regard toseniority. Order benefiting Jaswant Singh reads as follows :

“The above named joined our Bank as Officer on3.12.1976. Before joining our bank he was in IndianArmy and served there upto about 24 years indifferent capacities. He is about 50 years old and isa matured officer.He has been rated as good officer in the confidentialreports for the last three years. He has capacity toshoulder higher responsibilities.Looking into facts stated above, we are of theopinion that he may be given a chance to work asSub Manager at Branch Office Meerut.”

* Promotion Reg 17 is violated and Jaswant Singh promoted on15.12.83. Please see para XIII and XV of SLP pages 50 and 51.However, order dt. 28.3.07 and 25.5.09 admitted that Jaswant Singhgot military service benefits.

43




It is this order which is stated to have benefittedJaswant Singh and that too for the reason that he was earlierin Army. As mentioned above, the positive case of therespondent-bank is that no military service benefit was givento said Jaswant Singh.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties andgoing through the records of the case and, in particular,Annexure P-10, dated January 30, 1980, promoting orposting Jaswant Singh as Sub Manager, we are quiteconvinced that the said officer did not get any benefit onaccount of his having earlier served in Army. It is true thatwhile passing order, Annexure P-10, it was mentioned thatbefore joining the services of the Bank, the said officer wasin the Army. Promotion at the time was not dependent uponthe service rules and merit being a paramount consideration,even a junior could score over his senior. The rule dealingwith promotion has since already been reproduced above. Itappears to us that primarily considering that Jaswant Singhhad been rated a good officer in his confidential reports forthe last three years and had capacity to shoulder higherresponsibilities, he was appointed as Sub-Manager and ifwhile doing so, he had superseded some of his seniors, as isthe case of the petitioner, it can not be said that it was onlyon account of Jaswant Singh getting military service benefit.True, as mentioned above, while passing order, it wasmentioned that Jaswant Singh had earlier served in Army.There is no rule of giving military service benefit to any onein the bank service as such. It is only if the Punjab NationalEmergency Rules were extended to a particular institute thatone can get the benefits contained in the said Rules. Bindingof such rules, the service put in by a particular person and thattoo during emergency is counted while computing the serviceof the State in Civil Service. His date of appointment is, thus,deemed to be by going back for the years that he had put in

44

Justice Disgraced76



armed service and accordingly, if he earns promotion, thesame is given on the deemed date. Nothing as such was donewhen order. Annexure P-10 posting Jaswant Singh as Sub-Manager was passed on January 30, 1980.

We find no merit in his petition and dismiss the same,leaving however, the parties to bear their own costs.

Sd/- V.K. BaliJudge

March 6, 1998Sd/- M.L. Singhal

JudgeTrue Copy

45




REGD.Punjab and Sind Bank,

Sharifpura, Amritsar.August 22, 98

Dear Mr. Ujjal SinghAfter reading SLP(C) on 18.8.98, I found following vital

points missing from the petition :1. Reg. 17 of PSB(O) SR-1982 not reproduced in the petition.2. Averments of the petitioner ignored by Hon’ble D.B.

mentioned in Writ petition and replication.3. Respondent Bank did not claim in written statement

that Jaswant Singh was promoted on merits butdecided by Hon’ble D.B. (Not Mentioned)

4. More meritorious than Jaswant Singh not promotedbecause they were not Ex-servicemen (Not Mentioned)

5. Not prayed to quash Circular granting benefits toECO’s/SSCO’s similarly placed as petitioner.

6. Reg. 16(i) of the PSB Ltd. OSR-1979 wrongly interpretedby Hon’ble D.B. (Not mentioned).

7. Not prayed to summon the record of Jaswant Singh.

You are, therefore, requested to withdraw the SLP (C)with permission to file revised petition within four weeks bythe petitioner-in-person and not by you or any other advocate.

Yours sincerely,Sd/-

Mr. Ujjal Singh (Baldev Singh) officer415-R, Modal Town, Stationary Deptt, Amritsar.Jatal Road, Panipat N.B. 1. Also please supply Apex

Court ruling in similar case.2. Copy of AIR 1984 SC page

1789 also be supplied to.3. Copy of page A of the Petition.

Annexure P-12

Note : My advocate had met dealing hand in Bank and had struk a dealand had not filed all the papers in SLP. His son-in-law was undersuspension in the same bank. –Author

True Copy,Petitioner

46

Justice Disgraced78



Item No. 11 Court No. 2 Section IV-B

Supreme Court of IndiaRecord of Proceedings

Petitioner(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)No. 12773/98

(From the judgement and order dated 6.3.98 in CWPNo. 5047 of 97 of Punjab and Haryana High Court)

Baldev Singh .......................Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and ors. ..................Respondent

(with prayer for interim relief)Date 1.9.98 This petition was called on hearing today

CORAM :Hon’ble Justice S.C. AggarwalHon’ble Justice D.P. WadhwaFor the petitioner(s) Mr. Ujjal Singh, Adv.,

Mr. M.S. Husain, Adv, forMr. R.C. Kaushik, Adv.

For the Respondents;UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

ORDER:Shri Ujjal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner

states that he has received instructions from the petitionerto withdraw the SLP with permission to file revised petition.We are not inclined to grant permission to file revisedpetition. We dismiss the SLP as withdrawn.

Sd/-S.B. Sharma

Court Master

Annexure P-13

True Copy,Petitioner

Note : It is normal procedure and practice in courts to withdrawpetitions and file amended/revised petitions. –Author

47




C.W.P. No. 16989 of 1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No. 16989 of 1999

Date of Decision: 28.3.2007

Parties Name

Baldev Singh Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India and others Respondents

CORAM : Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. AggarwalPresent : Sh. Baldev Singh- petitioner in person.

Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, Additional Solicitor Generalfor respondent No.1Sh. IP. Singh, Advocate for Respondents No.2and 3 Haryana

S.N. Aggarwal, J.The petitioner was working in Punjab and Sind Bank

under respondent No.2 with effect from 11.3.1977. Prior tothat he has worked in Indian Air Force as Air Craftsman andother ranks from 29.1.1963 to 28.1.1972 out of which theperiod from 29.1.1963 to 10.1.1968 was declared asemergency period. However, the benefit of military servicewas not granted to thepetitioner, although the same wasgranted to Jaswant Singh respondent No.3. Hence thepetitioner filed CWP No. 5998 of 1988. This writ petitionwas disposed of by this court on 23.5.1994 (Annexure P-5)by passing the following operative order:-

“Consequently, the writ petition is allowed with thedirection to the respondent bank to consider the claim

Annexure P-1448

Justice Disgraced80



of the petitioner for the grant of benefits of militaryservice from the due date of the aforesaid JaswantSingh had been granted benefits of such service andhe (Jaswant Singh) belonged to the category of ex-servicemen like the petitioner. Let the claim of thepetitioner as aforesaid be considered within a periodof Six months and if he is found entitled to suchbenefits, the same shall be released to him within thenext three months. No order as to costs.”It was submitted by the petitioner that the said orderhas not been complied with by the respondents.Hence, this writ petition.On the other hand, the learned counsel for therespondents submitted that vide order dated23.5.1994, this court had directed the respondents toconsider the claim of the petitioner for the grant ofthe benefit of military service. In compliance with thesaid order, the respondents had considered the claimof the petitioner, but the same was rejected videorder dated 27.9.1994 (Annexure P-5). The saidorder was challenged by the petitioner by filing thecontempt petition (COCP No. 523 of 1995). However,it was dismissed by this Court vide order dated10.10.1995 by passing the following operative order :

"The grievance of the petitioner in the contemptpetition is that his case is precisely the same as wasthat of Jaswant Singh and he has been wronglydenied the relief. But that as it may, it is notnecessary to go into this question in contemptproceedings. The order of this court has beencomplied with. This contempt petition is dismissedand rule is discharged. It will however be open tothe petitioner to challenge the order declining himthe benefit of military service in appropriateproceedings according to law”.

49




Thereafter, the petitioner had filed CWP No. 5047 of1997. It was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of thisCourt on 6.3.1998 (Annexure P-10) by passing a detailedjudgement. The petitioner filed Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) No. 12773 of 1998. It was dismissed by the Hon ‘bleSupreme Court on 1.9.1998 (Annexure P-12) as withdrawn.

The submission of the learned ‘counsel for therespondents was that since the claim of the petitioner wasrejected by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court bypassing a detailed judgement on 6.3.1998 (Annexure P-10)and the SLP flied against this order was got dismissed aswithdrawn by the petitioner on 1.9.1998 (Annexure P-12),therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.

The submission of the petitioner only was that someof the points raised by the petitioner have not been discussedin the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench on6.3.1998 (Annexure P-10). Hence the present writ petitionis maintainable.

This submission is misconceived. If some of the pointsraised by the petitioner were not discussed in the judgementdated 6.3.1998, the only remedy open to the petitioner wasto challenge the said judgement by filing an appeal in theHon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner had filed the appeal;but that was got dismissed by the petitioner as withdrawn.No doubt the petitioner has sought permission of the Courtto file a fresh petition on the same cause of action, butpermission was denied by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.Therefore, the matter has become final at the level of Hon’bleSupreme Court after the passing of the order dated 1.9.1998.

The present writ petition obviously is not maintainable.Dismissed.

Sd/-S.N. Aggarwal

28.3.2007 Judge

TRUE COPYPetitioner

50

Justice Disgraced82



Item No. 210 Court No. 9 Section IV B

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. (s)

18239/2007(From the judgement and order dated 28.3.2007 in CWP

No. 16989/1999 of the High Court of Punjab andHaryana at Chandigarh)

Baldev Singh ........Petitioner(s)Versus

Union of India and ors. ......Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report)(for final disposal)

Date : 29/08/2008 This Petition was called on forhearing today.

CORAM :Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas KabirHon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju

For Petitioner(s) : Petitioner-in-PersonFor Respondent(s) : Mr Ajay Pal, Adv.,

Mr. I.P. Singh, Adv.Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following

ORDERHaving heard learned counsel for the parties, we are

of the view that the petitioner should exhaust his remedybefore the Division Bench of the High Court.

Accordingly, we dispose of this Special Leave Petitionwith leave to the petitioner to file appeal before the DivisionBench of the High Court, and if an application is made forcondonation of delay in filing the same, the same shall befavourably considered by the High Court.

(Ganga Thakur) (Juginder Kaur)P.S. to Registrar Court Master

True CopyPetitioner

Annexure P-1551





LPA NO. 292/08IN

CWP NO. 16989/99

Baldev Singh S/O Mr. Kartar Singh,Ex-Officer, PSB, 58, Industrial Complex,Goindwal 143, 422 (Distt. Tarn Taran) ............Petitioner

Versus




LETTERS PATENT APPEAL UNDER CLAUSE – X ofLetters Patent Appeal for setting aside the judgement andorder dated 28.3.2007 passed by Hon’ble Single Bench inC.W.P. No. 16989/1999 titled Baldev Singh Versus Unionof India and ors. That hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal in

Annexure P-1652

Justice Disgraced84



its Order discussed the case on merit in favour of thepetitioner but dismissed it on the ground/question ofmaintainability. That the petitioner filed an SLP (C) in theHon’ble Supreme Court. That the same SLP (C) No. 18239/2007 was disposed of with directions dt. 29.8.08. That theimpugned order dated 28.3.07 and the Hon’ble SupremeCourt directions dated 29.8.08 are Annexures A-1 and A-2respectively. That it is prayed to accept this appeal and allowthe writ petition No. 16989/99 with costs.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :1. That the present Letters Patent Appeal is being filed

to challenge the judgement and order of the Ld. Single Judgedismissing the CWP No. 16989/99 on 28.3.07 on the groundof maintainability and not on merits of the case.

2. That the facts and circumstances leading to the fillingof the writ petition referred to above and the judgement andorder passed by the Ld. Single judge are given below :-

I. That the petitioner’s CWP No 5998/88 wasallowed on 23.5.94 with the direction to therespondent No 2 to consider the case of petitionerif Military Service benefits are given to Jaswantsingh respondent No 3. That the same order isAnnexure P-l with this Appeal.

ii. That the respondent No 2 did not file any appealin the matter of above mentioned order dt,23.5.94 in CWP no 5998/88 and also rejected thecase of the petitioner vide their letter dated27.9.94. That the same letter is Annexure P-2 withthis LPA.

iii. That the petitioner made a representation dt.19.3.95. in respondent No 2 Letter dt 27.9.94.Stating therein that “Jaswant singh was promotedon 6.2,80 and placed in scale-II on 15.12.83,when

53




senior to him were promoted in 1993 and 1994after a gap of over 13 years.” That the petitionerreceived a cryptic and non speaking replydt. 5.4.95 where in it was stated.“We reiterate an earlier decision conveyed videour aforesaid letter of 27.9.94. in this regard.”That both the letters dt. 19.3.95. and 5.4.95 areAnnexure P-3 and P-4 respectively.

iv. That the petitioner filed COCP No 523/95 for theimplementation of Hon’ble High Court dt. 23.5.94.That the COCP No. 523/95 was dismissed on10.10.95 with the relief to the petitioner. “It willhowever be open to the petitioner to challenge theorder declining him. The benefit of military servicein appropriate proceedings according to Law”That the same order is Annexure P-5 with thispetition.

v. That the petitioner filed CWP No 504/97 for theimplementation of order passed by Hon’ble Highcourt on 23.5.94 in the matter of CWP No 5998/88 but it was dismissed on 6.3.98. By Hon’ble D.B.by making wrong Interpretations of facts and lawinvolved and by ignoring certain averments of thepetitioner. However the observation made by it ismatter of relief to the petitioner. It says, “At thisstage, all that has been contended by thepetitioner, who appears in person, is that judgementdated May 23, 1994 is binding between the partiesand when Jaswant singh was granted the militaryservice benefits respondent Bank had no optionbut to grant the same benefits to the petitioner aswell.”That the same order dated 6.3.98. is AnnexureP-6 with this LPA.

54

Justice Disgraced86



vi. That the petitioner aggrieved by the wrong anderred order passed by the Hon’ble D.B. filed andSLP (C) in Hon’ble Supreme court through anadvocate who turned out to be a great cheater anddid not include several vital points in the SLP (C).That for security reasons petitioner could notenter court room and tell the facts before theHon’ble court. That petitioner caught up indifficult and complex situation sent a REGD. Letterto advocate to withdraw the SLP (C) withpermission to file revised petition. That the sameletter dt.22.8.98 and Hon’ble Supreme Court’sorder dt.1.9.98 in the SLP (C) No. 12773/98 areAnnexure P-7 and P-8 with this appeal respectively.

vii. That the petitioner was in dilema as to what todo now. He was struck with an idea to file anotherwrit petition in the Hon’ble High Court bringingin all the facts before the Court. That the truthprevailed and the Hon’ble D.B. of the High Courtissued notice in CWP No. 16989/99 and the ballwas set rolling again. And the rest is legal history.

viii. That the respondent No 2 had promoted JaswantSingh, respondent No 3 twice by giving him thebenefits of military service on 6.2.1980, when theBank was in private sector and on 15.12.1983after the bank was Nationalized on 15.04. 1980respectively. That the office Note of promotion ofJaswant Singh dated 30.1.1980 and the actualpromotion letter dt.6.2 1980 are Annexure P-9and P-10, respectively.

ix. That the respondent No 2 had been issuingcirculars declaring certain benefits for Ex-servicemen re-employed in the Bank on 18.9.86,17.11.86 and 13.12.86. That the staff circular No

55




1626 dt 13.12.86 is relevant in the case of thepetitioner and the same is Annexure P-11 with thisLPA. That this circular violates Art 14 and 16 ofthe Constitution of India. That the benefits ofNational Emergency are extended to ECO’s/SSCO’s and ignores OTHER RANKS who aresimilarly placed like the petitioner who had alsojoined the Indian Air Force at the call of NationalEmergency.

x. That the petitioner before filing CWP No. 5998/88 had been making representations to therespondent No.2 for military service benefits. Thatthe last representation was made on 12.12.86 andrefusal by the bank was made on 22.12.86. Thatboth the letters are Annexure P-12 and P.13 withthis LPA respectively.

3. That the judgement and order dt. 28.3.2007 of theHon’ble LD. single judge Bench deserves to be reversed andthe writ petition deserved to be allowed on merits on thefollowing grounds of appeal.

GROUNDS OF APPEALi. Because the Hon’ble Single Bench has erred in Law

and facts and has not passed judgement and finalorder dt. 28.3.07 on merits in the matter of CWPNo. 16989/99 but on maintainability. Althoughthe Hon’ble Justice S.N Aggrawal had admitted inits order that Jaswant Singh, respondent No 3 hadbeen given military service benefits, therefore, theimpugned order is wrong.

ii. Because the Hon’ble Ld.Single Bench has erred innot appreciating the averments of the petitionerthat seven vital points were not included in theSLP (C) No. 12773/98 by his advocate, through

56

Justice Disgraced88



whom the petition was filed, the petitioner had towrite him by Regd. Post letter dt. 22.8.98 towithdraw the SLP (C)with the permission to filerevised petition.

iii. Because the Hon’ble Ld. Single Bench has erred innot appreciating the facts mentioned in AnnexureP-7, without vital points the SLP (C) No. 12773/98 would have failed on merits. That theadvocate’s complicity in the matter was timelynoted by the petitioner. That the petitioner couldnot enter the court for security reasons topersonally argue the case and tell the truth in thematter to the Hon’ble D.B. of the Supreme Court.But still the justice was wanting.

iv. Because the Hon’ble High Court erred in notappreciation the petitioner’s averments in thereplication dt.28.3.07 that no new grounds wereadded in the CWP No.16989/99 nor were anypointed out by the respondent No 2 in its writtenstatement. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court’sorder dt 1.9.98 (Annexure p-8) is not violated inany manner, whatsoever.

v. Because the Hon’ble High Court’s Single Judgeerred in not appreciating the argument of thepetitioner that the respondent No2 has failed toappeal against the judgement and order dt.23.5.94 in the CWP No. 5998/88 allowed infavour of petitioner, either in Hon’ble High Courtor in Hon’ble Supreme Court in accordance withlaw, therefore, admitted that Jaswant Singh,respondent No. 3 was given military servicebenefits when promoted on 6.2.80 and 15.12.83that when Jaswant Singh was promoted hesuperseded more than 700 of his seniors and

57




more meritorious officers and large amount ofarrears were paid to him on account of his 24years of military service.

vi. Because the Hon’ble Ld. Single Bench erred not toappreciate the argument of the petitioner thatonly respondent No.2 had filed its written and therespondent No.1 and 3 did filed written statementeven after completion of service to them. That itis also pertinent to mention here that even Hon’bleSupreme Court in the matter of SLP (C)No.18239/07 service to the respondent No. 1 and 3was completed, they did not file their respectiveCounter Affidavits, therefore, admitted the factthat Jaswant Singh was given military servicebenefits.

vii. Because the Hon’ble Single Bench erred inits impugned order dt. 28.03.07 in CWP NO.16989/99 to appreciate Jaswant Singh, respondentNo. 3 was promoted on 6.2.80 when the respondentBank was in private sector and again on 15.12.83when the respondent Bank was nationalized on15.4.80. both time giving him the military servicebenefits.

viii. Because the Hon’ble Single Bench erred in notappreciating the petitioner’s averment that theorder dt. 6.3.98 in CWP NO. 5047/97 had wronglyinterpreted the Office Notice of promotion ofJaswant Singh (Annexure P-9). Respondent No. 3and the ‘ promotion regulation 16 (1) of the PSB(Officers) Service Reg. 1979, which readsas below:“Promotions upto Grade-II will be on the basis ofmerit having due regard to seniority. Promotionsto Grade-III and above shall be made on merits”.

58

Justice Disgraced90



And had also ignored that after Nationalizationpromotion Regulation l7 and Promotions Policydt. 12.4.84 were effective. That military servicebenefits were given superseding 700 officers.

ix. Because the Hon’ble Single Bench erred in notdeciding the case on merits that when JaswantSingh, respondent No.3 was promoted on 15.12.83then promotion regulation 17 of Punjab and SindBank (officers) Service REG. 1982 were in force.“Reg 17 (1). Promotions to all Grades of officersin the Bank shall be made in accordance with thepolicy laid down by Board from time to time,having regard to Guidelines of the Government,if any.”That the respondent, Bank’s first PromotionsPolicy 1984 was notified on 12.4.1984 almost fourmonths after Jaswant Singh was promoted (placedin Scale - II) on 15.12.83 giving him 24 years ofhis military services benefits and paid him largeamount of arrears. That new fitment was for allofficers including petitioner but only JaswantSingh was promoted on 15.12.83.

x. Because the Hon’ble Single Bench has erred to notto appreciate the petitioner’s averment that therespondent No. 2 in its written statement filed inthe matter of CWP No. 16989/99 and also in thematter of CWP No. 5047/97 had never claimedthat Jaswant Singh, respondent No.3 was promotedon merits on 6.2.80 and 15.12.83, respectively,therefore, it is admitted that his promotions werepurely made on the basis of his 24 years of militaryservice benefits and large amount of arrears werepaid to him both times.

xi. Because the Hon’ble Single Bench erred to not to

59




appreciate that the order dt. 6.3. 98 in CWP No.5047/97 had not reversed the order dt. 23.5.94in CWP No. 5998/88, therefore, the Order dt.23.5.94 stands and the petitioner is legally right/correct to seek its implementation.

xii. Because the Hon’ble Single Bench erred in notappreciating the petitioner’s averment that therespondent.No 2, while filling written statementhad not annexed any document to claim any reliefin terms of sec. I-A of order VIII of CPC.

xiii. Because the Hon’ble Single Bench has erred in notappreciating that the respondent No.2 had notspecifically denied in terms of Sec. 3 Order VIIIof the CPC that Jaswant Singh, respondent No.3had not been given military service benefits whilepromoting him on 6.2.80 and after Nationalizationof the bank on 15.12.83 and that he hadsuperseded 700 of his senior and more meritoriousofficers and was paid large amount of arrears onboth the occasions.

xiv. Because the Hon’ble Single Bench has erred in notappreciating the patitioner’s averment that thosewho had joined the Armed Forces at the call ofNational Emergency are not denied militaryservice benefits. That the Order dt. 6.3.98 hadwrongly observed that, ‘there is no rule of givingmilitary service benefits to anyone in the Bankservices as such.’ In fact, on the contrary, there areCirculars dt. 18.9.86, 17.11.86 and 13.12.86 forgranting of various benefits to Ex-serviceman.That the relevant Staff Cir. No. 1626 dt. 13.12.86is Annexure P-11 with this LPA.

xv. Because the Hon’ble Single Bench erred in notdeciding the case on merits on 28.3.2007 but on

60

Justice Disgraced92



maintainability. That it is pertinent to mentionhere that in Hon’ble Supreme court also respondentNo. 2 shirked to argue the case on merits. Thatthe respondent No 2 is expert in using methodsnot permitted in law. But the petitioner believesin SATYAMEV JAYTE. Truth is very powerfulweapon to destroy evil designs.

It is, most respectfully prayed that this Letters PatentAppeal may please be allowed and the order passed byLearned Single Judge Bench dismissing the Writ Petition noton merits but on maintainability be set aside and the writpetition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed withcosts. That it is further prayed that the petitioner is seniorcitizen of 64 years. His date of birth being 12.12.44. Thatthe case may kindly be accorded priority in accordance withthe procedure of the Hon’ble High Court.

Chandigarh (Baldev Singh)Dated, September 18,2008 Petitioner-in-Person

VERIFICATIONVerified that contents of Para 1 to 3 spread over pages

1 to 13 are true and correct to my knowledge. No part ofthe LPA is false and nothing has been concealed there from.

Chandigarh (Baldev Singh)18.9.08

61





LPA No. 292/ of 2008Present : Mr. Baldev Singh, appellant in PersonC.M. No. 1125 of 2008

This application has been filed under section 5 of theLimitation Act, for condemnation of delay of 542 days infiling the present appeal.

The appellant, who appears in person, has argued that hewas pursuing his case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,therefore, the delay of 542 days in filing the appeal becondoned. He has also placed reliance on Annexure A-2,wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that, “if anapplication is made for condonation of delay in filing the same,the same shall be favourably considered by the High Court.”

In view of the aforementioned facts, we condone thedelay of 542 days in filing the appeal. C.M. stands disposed of.C.M. No. 1122 of 2008

Application is allowed and the delay of 2 days inrefilling the appeal is condoned.

MAIN CASEThe appellant, who had served in the Indian Air Force

as Air Craftsman, has prayed that he be given the benefitof the military service rendered by him. He submits thathe had rendered service from 29.1.1963 to 10.1.1968,which was declared as Emergency period, and hence, he isentitled to be given the benefits of the same. He has alsobrought to our notice the case of one Jaswant Singhrespondent No 3, who has been given the similar benefits.

Notice of motion for 17.4.2009.Sd/- Ashutosh Mohunta, Judge

February 27, 2009 Sd/- Nirmaljit Kaur, Judge

True CopyPetitioner

Annexure P-1762

Justice Disgraced94




I.A. NO. OF 2009

IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) NO. OF 2009

IN THE MATTER OF :

Baldev Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others .....Respondents

AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR ANDARGUE IN PERSON

TOTHE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIAAND HIS OTHER COMPANION JUDGESOF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THEPETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH AS UNDER :1. That the Petitioner has filed Special Leave Petition

(Civil) Diary No. 23903/09 in the aforementioned caseand is pending in the Supreme Court Registry forhearing in this Hon’ble Court.

2. All the facts and circumstances of the case have beenfully set out in the Special Leave Petition and thePetitioner craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to refer toand reply upon the same in support of the presentapplication and he seeks permission of the Hon’bleCourt to argue the matter in person.




PRAYERIn the facts and circumstances of this present case this

Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:a) allow the petitioner to appear and argue in person in

this petition before this Hon’ble Court; andb) pass such other or further order or orders as this

Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts andcircumstances of the present case in the interest ofjustice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE HUMBLEPETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

FILED BY:Filed on: 22.12.2009

(BALDEV SINGH)Petitioner-in-Person

Justice Disgraced96




I.A. NO. OF 2009IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. OF 2009

IN THE MATTER OF :Baldev Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others .....Respondents

AFFIDAVITI, Baldev Singh, S/o Sri Kartar Singh, aged about 65

years, R/O A-32, Sector-50, Noida, U.P. Presently at NewDelhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:

1. That I am the petitioner and was well acquainted withthe facts and circumstances of the case and hencecompetent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the contents of accompanying An Application forpermission to appear and argue in person in this S.L.P.are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it isfalse and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.Verified at New Delhi on this 22nd day of December,2009.

DEPONENT




REGD/Speed postH.E. The President of India,Rashtrapati Bhawan,New Delhi 110 001.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

SUBJECT : JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR OF PUNJAB ANDHARYANA HIGH COURT VIOLATES OATH OFOFFICE, IGNORES HON’BLE SUPREMECOURT’S DIRECTIONS DT. 29.8.08, DEVIATESFROM ORDER DT. 27.2.09 OF HON’BLE D.B.OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ANDIMPOSES COSTS OF RS. 10000/- ONPETITIONER OUT OF ILL-WILL

1. That the Petitioner’s case was remanded back toHon’ble High Court by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Itsorder dt. 29.8.08. That the copy of the same order isANNEXURE C-1 here with for ready reference please.

2. That Hon’ble D.B. of the Punjab and Haryana HighCourt passed the ORDER on 27.2.09 in the matter ofLPA NO 292/08 in CWP No. 16989/99. That therelevant part of it is reproduced as under:

MAIN CASE :The appellant, who had served in the Indian AirForce as Air Craftsman, has prayed that he be giventhe benefit of military service rendered by him. Hesubmits that he had rendered service from 20.01.1963to 10.01.1968, which was declared as Emergencyperiod, and hence, he is entitled to be given thebenefits of the same. He has also brought to ournotice the case of one Jaswant Singh respondent

Justice Disgraced98



No. 3, who has been given the similar benefits.Notice of motion for 17.04.2009

That the copy of LPA No. 292/08 in CWP No. 16989/99 andthe Order dated 27.02.2009 are ANNEXURE C-2 and C-3respectively herewith for ready reference please.3. That even after completion of service none of the three

respondents filed and reply/written statement to theNotice Issued by Hon’ble D.B. of the High Court,especially respondent No. 2, the main contestingrespondent in the case. Therefore, admitted the factsof the case.

4. That on 25.5.09 LPA No. 292/08 in CWP No.16989/99 was listed before Hon’ble D.B. comprisingJustice J.S. Khehar and Justice Uma Nath Singh.However, Justice Uma Nath Singh took leave on thatdate and another Hon’ble Judge sat along with JusticeJ.S. Khehar. That as soon as my case was called outfor hearing, Justice J.S. Khehar told me that I amexploiting Judicial process and that heavy costs wouldbe imposed upon me. This was before I as petitioner-in-person could open his mouth for arguments. Thisshows how the frame of mind of Justice J.S. Kheharwas. That he had already developed ILL-WILL towardsme. That he had lots of discussion with his brotherJudge and in the end did not decide my case on meritsbut dismissed on ground of maintainability and alsoimposed costs of Rs. 10000/-, which as an obedientcitizen and petitioner has paid the amount. That thecopy of final judgement and Order dt. 25.5.09 in thematter of LPA No 292/08 in ANNEXURE C-4 with thiscomplaint for ready reference.

PRAYERS :That in view of the facts stated above is it in the interest




of justice in the country and especially in the State ofUttarakhand that he be appointed as Chief Justice of thatState.

That has he not violated oath of office and shown “ILL-WILL” towards me the petitioner and imposed costs ofRs 10000/- knowing fully well that the case was remandedback by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its Order dt. 29.8.08and that the petitioner was merely obeying the Orders ofthe Hon’ble Supreme Court. And that the another D.B. ofthe Punjab and Haryana High Court had passed the Orderon merits in favour of the petitioner on 27.2.09, whileissuing the Notice of motion. That after that no reply/written statement was filed by any of the respondents.

That supreme law of the land, the Constitution of India,protects Hon’ble Judge to dispense justice without fear orfavour or ill-will but not to do injustice without caring forthe Supreme law, Supreme Court and another D.B. of thesame High Court.

That the matter is very grave and deserves seriousaction at the highest level, in the interest of reputation ofJudiciary and Justice.

With humble regards.Your faithfully

1.9.09 (Baldev Singh)Bank officer (retd.)

A-32, Sector 50,Noida 201 301

Note : Annexures C-1to C-3 of this letter are Annexures P-15 to 17 withthe S.L.P. respectively and Annexure C-4 is Impugned order ofthe SLP at Pages 34 to 42 of this book. —Author

Justice Disgraced100



AFFIDAVIT

I, Baldev Singh son of Shri Kartar Singh and presentlyresiding at A-32, Sector 50, Noida 201 301 (U.P.) do herebysolemnly affirm and declare as under :

1. That my Date of Birth is 12.12.1944 (twelve Decembernineteen forty four).

2. That I have filed an complaint/petition before H.E., thePresident of India. That the compaint/petition is dated1.9.09. That it is of three pages, and four Annexurescontaining total of pages.

3. That the facts stated in the complaint/petition dt.1.9.09 are correct and genuine one.

DEPONENTDECLARATION :

I, the above named deponent do hereby declare thatthe facts stated in above affidavit are correct and true to thebest of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been keptconcealed therein.

Dated : Sept. 2, 09 DEPONENTPlace : Noida




ITEM NO. 76 Court No. 3 SECTION IVBSUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.(s). 160/2010

(From the judgement and order dated 25/05/2009 in LPANo. 292/2008 in CWP No. 16989/1999 of the HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)

BALDEV SINGH Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

U.O.I. AND ORS. Respondent(s)

(with appln(s) for permission and office report)

Date : 08/02./2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIRHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPH

For Petitioner(s)Petitioner-In-Person,

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the followingORDER

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed

(Ganga Thakur) (M.S. Negi)PS to Registrar Court Master

Justice Disgraced102



OATH OF OFFICE OF SUPREME/HIGHCOURT JUDGE*

“I.............having been appointed Chief Justice/Justiceof Supreme/High Court at or of...............do swear in thename of God/Solemnly affirm, that I will bear true faith andallegiance to the constitution of India as by law established,(that I will upload the sovereignty and integrity of India)that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability,knowledge and judgement perform the duties of my officewithout fear or favour, affection or ill-will that I will upholdthe constitution and the laws.”

* Third Schedule of the Constitution of India.




.



justice disgraced by: baldev singh

Documents

pdffactory pro trial

honble high court

punjab andharyana high

letter of petitioner

copy of order

copy of supreme court

promotion letter

banks rejection letter