Justice Disgraced By: Baldev Singh

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.
com
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com
Justice Disgraced
Other books by the same Author :

l
Sikhism and the Sikhs (Ed.)
Was Bhindranwale a Congress Creation ?
Pangs of a Petitioner for Justice
Repeated Rape of Justice
Me Judice (Ed.)
Scam of Illegal Promotions (in press)
ibKu mih AMimRq (spw.)
Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere
Martin Luther King
Justice
Disgraced
Baldev Singh
MA
2014
JUSTICE DISGRACED
by
BALDEV SINGH
245, URBAN ESTATE,
KAPURTHALA -144 601 (INDIA)
MOB. 098151-20919
Email : Baldevsingh300@gmail.com
ISBN 978-81-8465-829-3
First Edition 2011
Second Edition 2012
Third Edition 2014
Price: Rs. 100-00
Published by
THE AUTHOR
Printers:
PRINTWELL, 146, INDUSTRIAL FOCAL POINT, AMRITSAR.
Dedicated to
Late Sirdar Kapur Singh

M.A. (Cantab), ICS,
MP (third Lok Sabha), MLA (Pb.) (formerly)
Contents
Preface
Title Page of SLP
Index of Special leave Petition (civil)
Office Report of Limitition A
Synopsis with list of dates
Memo of Party
9-20
21
22-23
24
25-32
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
(Banks Circular about benefits to ECOs/SSCOs) 60-61
P-5
(Banks rejection letter)
P-6
(C.W.P. No. 5998/88 allowed

on merits by Honble High Court)
63-65
P-7
(Banks denial letter)
66-67
P-8
(Petitioners representation)
68-69
P-9
(Banks cryptic non speaking reply)
70
P-10 (COCP No. 523/95 of Punjab and

Haryana High Court dismissed with relief)
71
62
P-11 (C.W.P. No. 5047/97 dismissed by

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P-13 (SLP No. 12773/98 dismissed as withdrawn)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

Haryana High Court dismissed on ground
of maintainability)
80-82
P-15 (SLP (C) No. 18239/07 in Supreme Court

case remanded back to High Court)
83
P-16 (Copy of LPA No. 292/08 in CWP No. 16989/99)

P-17 (Copy of order passed by D.B. of High Court
comprising of Justice Ashutosh Mohunta
and Justice Nirmaljit Kaur)
Application (I.A.) (In SLP. No 160/10 for permission to
appear and argue case in person)
Copy of Complaint to H.E. The President of India
against Justice J.S. Khehar
84-93
94
95-97
98-101
Copy of Supreme Court order dt. 8.2.2010. (SLP(C) No. 160/10

dismissed without mentioning any reason).
102
Oath of Office of Supreme Court/High Court Judge in India
103
PREFACE
Ex-servicemen are re-employed in Government, semigovernment and civil jobs in India. They are given certain
benefits after re-employment. I am an Ex-serviceman and was
re-employed as an officer in a Bank. I had served in the Indian
Air Force as a Combatant for nine years from 1963 to 1972.
National Emergency was declared by the Govt of India after
the Chinese aggression in 1962. Punjabi soldiers had valiantly
died in nations defence and civilians Punjabis had donated
maximum gold in national defence. Filmstar Balraj Sahni had
specially come to Ambala Cantt to request for donations from
public. 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 Amritsar
and Aizwal (Mizoram), respectively. During my Air force days
I 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 minor
aberrations are always there. I also saw many men studying
and improving their qualifications and prospects in life. Many
universities permitted defence employee to appear privately.
Likewise Punjab University, Chandigarh was one of those. I
had 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 and
one sister. We were dependent upon our Mamaji (uncle) who
was then posted as Post Master General of a State in India.
My elder brother was facilitated by him to get engineering
degree at Birla Engg. College, Pilani. (Raj). My uncle was very
honest and truthful person. These were virtues during the
British Raj but not so under Swaraj. He had soon realised it
10
Preface
after independence. We were trained by him to be honest and

truthful. That made me misfit in the society and employment.
In India if you are loyal to the country or the institution you
serve, 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 the
bank, I learnt that few ex-sevicemen re-employed in the bank
have been given military service benefits like increments and
promotions etc. I also applied for but was refused. I filed a
writ Petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court through
an advocate in the year 1988. The matter was getting delayed
and I appeared in person in 1994 and my writ was allowed
on merits with specific directions to the respondent bank. It
was not implemented by my employer. The present book in
hand is outcome of that struggle for implementation of that
judgement and order dt. 23.5.94, which was never ever
challenged by my employer bank. It turned out to be a waste
of time and money for about 22 years. But, nevertheless I have
also gained first hand experience of our judicial system. How
it 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 decision
making and legal fraternity both good and bad and also the
common man. I feel this case should not remain dead in dust
gathering files in Courts. It must live on in the form of a book
and reach out to public also. Individuals like me will come
and perish. It does not matter. But it must matter, when the
most important of all, justice is influenced and disgraced.
When injustice is done and tolerated slavery sets in. I quote
Justice B.N. Aggarwals observation during hearing in Supreme
Court about 23 crore PF scam case. He said :
judges have not descended from heaven but have
Preface
11
come from the same society which produces corrupt

politicians and corrupt babus (TOI 11.8.08, New Delhi)
The Honble judge is full of wisdom when he spoke those
words. In fact it is the society that produces good or bad
teachers, doctors, judges, politicians and bureaucrats etc. Still
deeper at the root is weather we produce good or bad human
beings. It is this raw material that is essential for any civilised,
good law abiding society. If this material is not good, society
would be brutish.
I have often heard advocates talk of good bench or not
so good bench etc. They even wait for new benches are
reconstituted before filing their clients petitions. I had no such
inhibitions. I respected all the judges equally but I used to sit
and enjoy and most importantly learnt how to argue my case
in the courts of Justice Jawahar Lal Gupta and Justice G.S.
Singhvi. They are excellent human beings besides being
excellent judges. However, I share my exprience to prove
advocates point of view.
My contempt of court petition filed through a senior
advocate failed to bring any positive result in this case. I filed
another writ petition in-person. Notice of motion was issued
by Division Bench of the High Court on CWP No. 5047/97
presided by Justice N.C. Jain after office note of promotion
dt. 8.1.80 of Jaswant Singh was read out before the Court
(Annexure P-1). After Completion of service, a written
statement dt 14.10.97 was filed by advocates P.S. Patwalia
and Rohit Ahuja on behalf of respondent No 2 only.
Replication filed by me was allowed to be placed on record
by D.B. presided by Justice J.L. Gupta on 22.12.97. On next
date i.e. 18.2.98 it was listed before another D.B. presided by
Justice V.K. Bali, which was unusual. Usually it is listed before
the same D.B. which had heard the case earlier and had
allowed replication to be placed on record. But without any
hesitation, doubt or reservation I argued my case and
12
Preface
advocate P.S. Patwalia (he is son of Justice Kuldip Singh of

Supreme Court. He was appointed Judge of High Court
Chandigarh but soon resigned) argued for respondent No 2.
The order was reserved. The decision/judgement was
pronounced on 6.3.98 without any information to the
petitioner. In person is informed by the Courts but in this case
it was not and the CWP No. 5047/97 was dismissed. However,
a munshi informed me of the Judgement. After getting copy
of judgement I found name of Namit Kumar as advocate
instead of P.S. Patwalia. Namit Kumar was not given
vakaltnama by the respondant bank therefore, it was wrong
and doubt developed in my mind.
Next step was to file an SLP in Supreme Court. It was
filed through an advocate and withdrawn for reasons given
in 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 for
implementation of judgement and order dt. 23.5.94, in the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana. It came up for hearing
before D.B. comprising Justice J.L. Gupta and Justice A.S.
Garg on 8.12.99. After brief hearing, Notice was issued for
24.3.2000. On next date of hearing office report said service
to respondents 2 and 3 was completed and order was passed
to them to file written statement but did not file any reply.
Again on 18.5.2000 similar order was passed but the
respondent No 2 did not file any reply. On next date my file
in the registry of the High Court was missing. On 6.8.2001
my case was listed before the D.B. comprising Justice
V.K. Bali and Justice J.S. Khehar. On that day I fell sick and
could not reach Chandigarh from Amritsar. My case was
dismissed in default by honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali. During
my sittings in Courts I had seen many instances where none
appeared but their cases were never dimissed in default. On
the contrary I had seen in a case IN Person like me who did
Preface
13
not come to court and the judge ordered that next date be
informed to him. In my case on very first opportunity it was
dismissed in default. (RAGAR DITTA). However, my case was
restored after I had applied for its restoration. As a matter
of rule civil cases are restored. It was his judgement of 6.3.98
I had prayed was wrong, in this paper book (case). I felt
aggrieved at the vindictive attitude of the constitutional
authority as high as Judge. I could not tolerate it. There is
limit to toleration. I sent all the facts to H.E. the President
of India. Not that some action will come against the judge.
I knew legal limitations of the President or for that matter any
authority. 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 before
another D.B. None appeared for respondents, specially
respondent No. 2. I appeared and argued that respondent
No. 2 is deliberately not filling written statement inspite of
service being completed and is using delaying tactics to delay
the final decision. The Court passed the following order :
CWP No. 16989/99
Present : Baldev Singh, Petitioner-in-person.
Admitted
To be listed for arguments on 30.7.2002. Meanwhile, the
service shall be got completed.
13.2.2002
R.L. Anand
Judge
Amar Dutt
Judge
Service was already completed. The all powerful registry

did not list the case for arguments for about 5 years, inspite
of repeated visits and requests to officials. I have learnt
through direct and indirect experience that registry officials
can be influenced for listing of cases, both delay and early
14
Preface
hearing in rare cases. CBI had arrested three employees of

registry of Supreme Court for listing of case early for
considerations. (TOI 11.2.09) I would be writing more in my
two other books titled, Pangs of a petitioner for justice and
Scam of illegal promotions. (Both these books are under
preparation.) The respondent No. 2 filed its written statement
dt. 19.3.07 after seven years of service of Notice and case
decided on 28.3.07. It was dismissed on ground of
maintainability. However, on merits it was admitted that
respondent No 3, Jaswant Singh was given military service
benefits. I must confess to the greatness of Justice S.N.
Aggarwal for having admitted the truth and virtually reversing
the order passed by the D.B. presided by Justice V.K. Bali on
6.3.98. Guru Nanak said, Truth is higher, still higher is
truthful living.
The only option left for me was to petition the Honble
Supreme Court. That the much needed maintainability lay
with it.
My SLP (civil) No. 18239/07 came up for hearing before
Honble D.B. comprising Justice A.K. Mathur and Justice
Markandey Katju on 12.10.07. After brief hearing notice was
issued. Mine was the last case (Petitioner-in-Persons case is
listed in the last, a security personnel is sent along to prevent
any misconduct, {One gets feeling of hangman with him}
security pass is required to enter court room and he/she is
allowed inside the court room just a few cases before his/her
case is listed and called for hearing). It is a practice that all
cases listed for hearing are sent to concerned judges house
a day earlier so that Honble judge is able to have cursory or
thorough reading of case. What a judge reads in a paper book,
either he knows or the God. Others can imagine only. But I
have seen some judges are so through that advocates cannot
dodge them while arguing case for their clients. They are
masters of their profession and the court. All judges are so
thorough at the first hearing itself when notice is issued or
Preface
15
the petition is dismissed, the decision has to be taken on

merits of each case. Therefore, negligence is not appreciated
by Bar members.
After notice, my case was listed before the Court of the
Registrar S.G. Shah on 3.12.07. (earlier cases used to be listed
before judges courts. One CJI changed it to be listed before
Registrars till service is completed. It reduces the workload
of judges). When judiciary is alert and sees through the game
of delaying tactic of respondents it passes orders like the one
reproduced below. It reflects positive and determined approach
of 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 Person
For Respondent (s)
Mr. Gagan Deep Sharma, Adv.
For Mr. Ajay Pal, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
Issue fresh notice upon respondent No. I and 3, without
additional process fee and spare copies of pleadings,
which is to be sent through the concerned District Court
of Delhi for effecting service upon unserved Respondent
Nos 1 and 3, with a direction to the serving officer to
affix the notice at the given address, if the notice could
not be served in due course. However, petitioner is
directed to serve the copies of the pleadings to the
concerned Advocates who have filed their appearance in
the matter.
Mr. Gagan Deep Sharma, learned Advocate appearing on
behalf of Mr. Ajay Pal, Advocate-on-Record accepts
notice for Respondent No 2 and seeks time to file
Vakalatnama and Counter Affidavit.
They may do so before 12 th February, 2008.
16
Preface
List the matter on 12th February, 2008.

(S.G. SHAH)
Registrar.
This Order had come after I had prayed that on same
addresses notices were served in High Court. Now it could be
delaying tactics of respondent No 2.
Again on 15.4.08, even after completion of service
respondent No 2 prayed for time. The Court passed the
following order :
Sufficient time has been granted to respondent No 2
for filling the Counter Affidavit. Hence, no further
time can be granted by this Court. List the matter
before the Honble Court.
(S.G. SHAH)
Registrar.
On 14.7.08 my case was listed before Honble Court of
Justice A.K. Mathur and Justice J.M. Panchal and the
following order was passed :
Learned Counsel for the Punjab and Sind Bank
(respondent No 2 herein) had handed over a copy of
the Counter Affidavit to the petitioner appearing in
person. Petitioner, appearing in person prays for four
weeks time for filling rejoinder affidavit and submits
that the matter may be listed for final disposal
thereafter.
Let rejoinder affidavit be filed within four weeks. Put
up for final disposal thereafter.
As luck would have it, Justice A.K. Mathur retired soon
after. Now the role of registry became crucial. Last order
passed on 14.7.08 had Justice J.M. Panchal as second judge
but when the Notice was issued second judge was Justice
Markandey Katju. What the rules of listing of SC Registry say
I do not know but on next date my case was listed before
Preface
17
Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice Markandey Katju. When my

case came up for final disposal on 29.8.08 Justice Markandey
Katju insisted that the case be remanded back to High Court
because it is passed by Single Bench (reader may kindly note
that he had issued notice on 12.10.07 being second judge, on
that day itself it should have been remanded) When I prayed
that I may be allowed to read out impugned order, Justice
Altamas Kabir permitted me (so nice of him). From the
impugned order I read out that
Thereafter, he had filed CWP No 5047 of 1997. It was
dismissed by the honble Division Bench of this court
on 6.3.1998 (Annexure P-10) by passing a detailed
judgement.
But still Justice Markandey Katju was unmoved, therefore, my
case was remanded back to High Court, though it was ordered
to be listed for final disposal by earlier D.B. of Honble
Supreme Court itself. And also not withstanding my pleadings
that I am a Senior Citizen and such cases are decided on
priority. Therefore proverb justice delayed is justice denied,
has been changed to justice disgraced. Not only that it is
repeatedly disgraced. To me it is like repeated rape of justice.
Later on I have read in newspapers that Single Bench
cases are heard and decided by Honble Supreme Court. Two
prominent cases I would like to mention here. Firstly, Justice
Nadira Patherya of Calcutta High Court had passed an order
against BCCI officials. Times of India of November 22, 08
reports, Pawar, BCCI move Supreme Court against Calcutta
HC Order. And SC stayed the order on 5.12.08. Secondly,
Justice Ranjit Singh Randhawa of Punjab and Haryana High
Court had passed an order in the case of Anurag Saxena, SS
Virk etc. It was stayed by Apex Court (The Tribune 15.2.09).
There may many many more examples. There is Punjabi
proverb KAON AKHE RANIE AGGA DHAK (who can dare tell
the queen, cover your naked front).
18
Preface
Never mind, an order is order and has to be obeyed. I

filed an LPA No 292/08 in Punjab and Haryana High Court
and it came up for hearing before Honble D.B. comprising
of Justice Ashutosh Mohunta and Justice Nirmaljit Kaur. They
issued Notice and made favourable observations in their order
also. They had no inhibitions about maintainablity but issued
notice on merits (Annexure P-17) dt. 27.2.09. But when it
came before D.B. presided by Justice J.S. Khehar (He is now
judge at Supreme Court and is likely to be first Sikh CJI) it
attained different color altogether. He was junior to Justice
V.K. Bali at the High Court in the same division banch. This
constitutional authority, before I could open my mouth for
arguments threatened me with heavy costs. He had no
consideration for oath of office, which says no ILL-WILL, no
consideration for Supreme Courts directions dt 29.8.08,
observation of another D.B. of High Court who had issued
notice and that respondent No 2 had not filed reply to the
notice issued by High Court. However, he admitted in his
judgement that respondent No 3, Jaswant Singh was given
military service benefits twice and the same are denied to
Baldev Singh. That is what my case was ! This is clear
violation of article 14 and 16 of the constitution and the order
dt. 23.5.94 of the High Court.
Judgements are displayed on internet for every one to
read but this judgement in not displayed on high Courts
internet.
Aggrieved, I sent facts to my former Supreme Commander,
the President of India.
One last legal remedy was avilable to me. I filed Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No 160/10 in the Honble Supreme
Court in the hope that my case would be heard and decided
on merits. My case came up for hearing before D.B. presided
by Justice Altamas Kabir at about 1810 hrs on 8.2.10. (He
is popular with advocates. He hears them with patience and
sits till all cases are heard, time is no limitation for him. He
Preface
19
is sure to become Chief Justice of India. He is nephew of Prof.

Humayun Kabir (Bengali Bhadra Lok), a secular intellectual
and Cabinet Minister of Nehru era.)
While I was arguing my case on merits, Honble presiding
Judge told me, you have made series of complaints against
judges, no intervention, dismissed. My reply was, I had
merely stated facts. Then I prayed that my case may be heard
on merits. Then he repeated No, dismissed. If my complaints
against judges are false/wrong then I should be proceeded
against but case should have been decided on merits.
Then again I prayed, My Lord, If Supreme Court is not
going to hear my case on merits then who will, where should
I go.
There was no response from Honble Supreme Court. I
argued, My lord, my case was remanded back to High Court
by Supreme Court. I was arguing in High Court on the
directions of this Court, costs of Rs 10000/- has been imposed
on me. Kindly refund that amount.
Justice Altamas Kabir, Mr. Baldev Singh, you have made
series 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 the
order would result in injustice. He further said, the Supreme
Court had the inhearent powers to correct the injustice.
My last words were, Grateful, my lord and I bowed a
little before highest judicial authority of india i.e. Bharat and
made my exit from the Court room. A security man was
behind me. Another security personnel was sitting between
me and the Honble Judges, facing me. They were on duty
to see that I do not misbehave with Honble judge. I am an
disciplined, civilised and God fearing man, but fearless when
fighting for truth and Justice. In fact I was expecting another
impositions of costs. God saved me. But while coming out, an
English proverb croped up in my mind, Birds of same feather
fly together. This proverb was used by Honble SC while
20
Preface
confirming death sentence on Kehar Singh, convict in murder

case 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 like
me will pay money and also get injustice. System is not so
bad as some say, but it is people dealing with it are good or
bad. If senior officers/executives do not act arbitrarily, half
of litigation will come down in courts. If senior officers/
executives do not act arbitrarily half the litigation will come
down in courts. It has gone from bad to worst. There is no
other alternative nor any escape. An advocate after reading
this book told me, It was not expected from Justice Kabir.
One law Minister says, In-house mechanism has failed (The
Tribune, Feb. 24,09), another Law minister differs with him
(The Tribune, Feb. 16, 2010). Both ministers of same
Government but different individuals. No early solution is also
in sight, Hence, this book for those who are concerned about
justice, truth, honesty and also those who are concerned
about the future of this country. If this can happen to
individual like me it can happen to any body/others also. So
many jurists have complained against judges. Now their cases
should also be not heard and decided on merits. Those jurists
are powerful but I am an weak individual. Eminent jurist Fali
S. Nariman said, with few exceptions, the higher judiciary
tends to stick together when anyone speaks of wrong doing
amongst them, even though they themselves know the truth.
I would describe it as a spirit of trade unioniusm. Judges have
wrapped themselves in a clock of inviolability (India Today).
Where is equality guaranteed in the Constitution of largest
democracy in the world ? Our constitution is defied, disobeyed
and defiled by those who have taken oath to protect it, respect
it, and impliment it.
04.04.2014
Kapurthala
Baldev Singh
Mobile : 098151-20919
Justice Disgraced
21
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
160/10
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 High
Court at Chandigarh, dismissed the LPA No. 292/08 in CWP
No. 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 PERSON
A 32, Sector 50, Noida 210, 301 (U.P)
Mobile No. O98151-20919
22
Justice Disgraced

Baldev Singh Versus Union of India & Ors.
INDEX
Sl. No. Particulars of Documents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Office Note on limitation

Listing Performa
Synopsis with list of dates
Impugned judgement and order
dt. 25.5.09 passed by D.B. of
Punjab & Haryana High Court In
LPA No. 292/08 in
CWP No. 16989/99)
SLP with affidavit
ANNEXURE P-1 (office Note of
promotions of Jaswant Singh,
respondent no 3)
ANNEXURE P-2 (promotion letter)
ANNEXURE P-3
(representation to Respondent No. 2)
ANNEXURE P-4 (respondent Banks
Circular giving military service
benefits to ECOs/SSCOs)
ANNEXURE P-5
(respondent Banks rejection letter)
ANNEXURE P-6 (CWP No. 5998/88
allowed on merits by Honble Punjab
and Haryana High Court)
ANNEXURE P-7
(respondent No 2 denial letter)
ANNEXURE P-8
(representation to respondent No 2)
Date
Page
11.8.09
A
A1 - A2
B to I
25.5.09
11.8.09
1 to 10
11 to 24
30.1.80
6.2.80
25
26
12.12.86
27
13.12.86
22.12.86
28 & 29
30
23.5.94
31 to 33
27.9.94
34 to 35
19.3.95
36 & 37
* Note : These page Nos. are of the Original Paper Book and not of this
book.
Justice Disgraced
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23
ANNEXURE P-9 (respondent No 2s

cryptic & non-speaking reply)
5.4.95
ANNEXURE P-10 (COCP No. 523/95 of
Punjab & Haryana High Court
dismissed with relief)
10.10.95
ANNEXURE P-11 (CWP No. 5047/97
dismissed by D.B. of Punjab & Haryana
High Court)
6.3.98
ANNEXURE P-12
(letter to advocate Ujjal Singh)
22.8.98
ANNEXURE P-13
(SLP (C) No. 12773/98 in
Supreme Court dismissed
as withdrawn)
1.9.98
ANNEXURE P-14
(CWP No. 16898/99 of Punjab &
Haryana dismissed on ground
of maintainability
28.3.07
ANNEXURE P-15
(SLP (C) No 18239/07 in Supreme Court.
Case remanded back to High
Court of Punjab and Haryana,
disposed of)
29.8.08
ANNEXURE P-16
(Copy of LPA No. 292/08 in
CWP No. 16989/99 of
Punjab & Haryana High Court
18.9.08
ANNEXURE P-17
(Copy of Order dt. 27.2.09 passed
by D.B. of Punjab & Haryana High
Court in the matter of LPA No. 292/08
in CWP No. 16989/99)
27.2.09
Place : New Delhi

Date : August 12, 09
38
39
40 to 45
46
47
48 to 50
51
52 to 61
62
Petitioner-in-Person
Justice Disgraced
24
A
Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (Civil)
160/10 09
No...............of
IN THE MATTER OF :
Baldev Singh
.....................................Petitioner
Versus
..........................Respondents
OFFICE REPORT OF LIMITATION

THIS PETITION IS WITHIN TIME
New Delhi
Section Officer
Justice Disgraced
25
B
160/10
SLP (C) No.......................
Baldev Singh
Versus
Synopsis with list of Dates

The instant Special Leave Petition (Civil) arises out of
the judgement and final order dated 25.05.09 in matter of
LPA No. 292/08 In CWP No 16989/99 passed by the Honble
D.B. of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, has
erroneously dismissed the Appeal without passing the order
on merits but on ground of maintainability.
That the petitioners CWP No. 5998/88 was allowed on
merits on 23.5.94 by Honble Single Bench of Punjab and
Haryana High Court with the directions to the respondent
No. 2 to consider the case of petitioner if Jaswant Singh,
respondent No 3, was granted military service benefits while
promoting him on 6.2.80 and on 15.12.83. That the case
was decided on merits. That the respondent No 2 rejected
the case of petitioner but did not go in for appeal in Honble
High Court or Honble Supreme Court, the only legal remedy
available to the respondent No 2, against the judgement and
final order dt. 23.5.94. That since then petitioner is
struggling for the implementation of order dated 23.5.94
and 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 this
SLP (C) for the perusal of this Honble Court as Annexures.
Being aggrieved by the impugned judgement and final
order dated 25.5.09 in the matter of LPA No. 292/08 in CWP
No. 16989/99, passed by D.B. of Punjab & Haryana High
Court the petitioner is filing the instant Special Leave
Contd......C
Petition (Civil).
26
Justice Disgraced
18.5.1976
The petitioner joined as officer Trainee in the

service of respondent No 2 when in private
sector bank.
11..3.1977 The petitioner joined as regular officer.
30.1.1980
Jaswant Singh, respondent No. 3 office note
of promotion. ANNEXURE P-1
6.2.1980
Jaswant Singh, Respondent No. 3 promotions
letter. ANNEXURE P-2
15.4.1980
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 gross
violation of promotion regulation 17 of Punjab
and Sind Bank (officers) Service Regulations1982, giving him the military service benefits
which included large amount of arrears and
revised pay scales.
20.2.1986
Petitioner applied for military service benefits.
12.8.86
Petitioners 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-3
13.12.1986 Respondent No 2 issued another Circular for
benefits to ECOs/SSCOs for military service
rendered during National Emergency but not
given to OTHER RANKS, like the petitioner
who were similarly placed, therefore, violated
Justice Disgraced
27
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

ANNEXURE P-4
22.12.86
Respondent Bank rejects military service
benefits to petitioner wrongly.
ANNEXURE P-5
23.5.1994
Petitioners CWP No. 5998/88 was allowed on
merits by Honble single Bench of Punjab and
Haryana High Court with the directions to
respondent No. 2 to consider the case of
petitioner if military service benefits given to
Jaswant Singh, respondent No. 3, while
promoting him on 6.2.80 and 15.12.83.
ANNEXURE P-6
27.9.94
Respondent No. 2 denies having given any
military service benefits to Jaswant Singh,
respondent No 3 in this case, while promoting
him on 6.2.80 (before nationalisation of the
Bank) 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 that
the respondent bank had not denied in wirtten
statement in Honble High Court that no
military service benefits were given to jaswant
Singh. That it was also stated that, Mr.
Jaswant Singh was promoted when senior to
him were promoted in 1993 and 1994 after a
gap of over 13 years. ANNEXURE P-8
5.4.95
The respondent No. 2s reply was cryptic and
non-speaking. ANNEXURE P-9
10.10.1995 Petitioners COCP No. 523/95 was dismissed
by Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court
with the directions that, It will be open to
28
Justice Disgraced
10.4.97
8.12.97
18.2.98
6.3.1998
the petitioner to challenge the order declining

him the benefits of military service in
appropriate proceeding according to law.
ANNEXURE P-10
CWP No. 5047/97 was filed and Notice of
Motion issued by Honble D.B. of Punjab and
Haryana High Court comprising Justices N.C.
Jain and Justice B. Rai when office not of
promotion of Jaswant Singh, ANNEXURE
P-1, with this SLP was read out by the
petitioner in the Court.
Petitioner filed replication C.M. No. 28102/97
and it was allowed to be placed on record by
Honble D.B. presided by Justice J.L. Gupta.
And the next date was given as 18.2.98.
That the arguments took place before another
D.B. presided by Justice V.K. Bali. That only
respondent No 2 had filed written statement
and on behalf of respondent No 2 advocate
P.S. Patwalia had appeared and argued the
case. That the order was reserved.
That the CWP No. 5047/97 was dismissed by
D.B. of Punjab & Haryana High Court. That the
Judgement and final order was passed without
any information to the petitioner, who appeared
IN PERSON. That only pre-nationalisation
arguments were considered, that too with
wrong interpretations. That the statutory
promotions regulations 17 of Punjab and Sind
Bank (officers) Service Regulation-1982 were
ignored. That the promotions Reg. 17 is
reproduced as under :
Regulation 17 (1). Promotions to all grades
of officers in the Bank shall be made in
Justice Disgraced
29
4.6.98
18.8.1998
accordance with the policy laid down by the

Board from time to time, having regard to the
guidelines of the Govt. If any.
That Jaswant Singh, respondent No 3 was
promoted to Grade-II on 15.12.83 by giving
him the military service benefits he had
rendered in the Army for 24 years and large
amount of arrears and revised pay were paid
to him. Thus he had superceded over 700 of
his senior and more meritorious officers. That
the Banks first Promotion Policy was notified
vide Staff Circular No 1360 dt. 12.4.84 in
terms of the aforesaid regulation 17. That it
is mathematically clear that Jaswant Singh,
respondent No 3, was promoted almost five
months before the policy was notified.
That the respondent Bank (No. 2) in its written
statement had never ever claimed that Jaswant
Singh, respondent No 3, was promoted on
merits, yet the Order dt. 6.3.98 decided that
he was promoted on merits. That the same
Order is ANNEXURE P-11
Petitioner aggrieved by the Order dt 6.3.98 in
CWP No. 5047/97 filed an SLP (C) in Supreme
Court through an advocate Ujjal Singh against
the High Court order.
Petitioner gets copy of the SLP from his
advocate with great difficulty. That after
reading the petition it was noted by the
petioner that many vital points have not been
included in the SLP No. 12773/98. That my
case was listed before Honble D.B. on that
date for hearing. That petitioner wanted to
enter the Court Room and explain the whole
30
Justice Disgraced
22.8.98
1.9.98
8.12.1999
28.3.07
12.10.07
matter to the Court but was not allowed by

security men for security reasons. That
petitioner even approached the Security officer
and Section IV B officer but none was of any
help. That the petitioners advocate did not
verify the petitioner for entry pass. That the
petitioner had to return to Amritsar a
disheartened but determined man.
Petitioner wrote a registered letter to advocate
Ujjal Singh to withdraw the SLP in Supreme
Court with permission to file revised petitioner
within four weeks. That letter is ANNEXURE
P-12.
That the SLP (C) No. 12773/98 was dismissed
as withdrawn by Supreme Court but permission
to file revised petition was not allowed
because Advocate Ujjal Singh misrepresented
the facts before the Honble Court. therefore,
miscarriage of justice. ANNEXURE P-13.
Petitioner files CWP No. 16989/99 in Honble
Punjab and Haryana High Court. Notice of
Motion isued by Honble D.B.
CWP No. 16989/99 came up for hearing
before Single Bench of Punjab and Haryana
High Court. It was dismissed on grounds of
maintainability but on merits it was admitted
that Jaswant Singh, respondent No 3, was
given military service benefits. That judgement
and final order is ANNEXURE P-14.
SLP (C) No. 18239/07 came up for hearing
before Honble D.B. of Supreme Court
comprising of Justices A.K. Mathur and
Markandey Katju. After hearing Notice was
issued.
Justice Disgraced
29.8.08
18.9.08
27.2.09
25.5.09
31
SLP (C) No. 18239/07 was listed for final

disposal before Honble D.B. of Supreme Court
comprising Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice
Markandey Katju. That after hearing it was
remanded back to the Honble Punjab and
Haryana High Court. ANNEXURE P-15
LPA No 292/08 in CWP No 16989/99 filed
in Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court as
per directions of the Apex Court. Copy of LPA
292/08 is ANNEXURE P-16
LPA No 292/08 in CWP No 16989/99 came up
for hearing before Honble D.B. of Punjab and
Haryana High Court. Notice of Motion issued.
ANNEXURE P-17
LPA No. 292/08 in CWP No 16989/99 came
up for hearing before Honble D.B. of Punjab
and Haryana High Court. None of the
respondents, especially respondent No 2 did
not file any reply/written statement. That at
outset Honble presiding Judge warned the
petitioner that, you are exploiting judicial
process and would be asked to pay heavy
costs. That the case was dismissed on ground
of maintainability again and not considering
the case on merits. That heavy costs of Rs.
10000/- was imposed on the petitioner, not
showing any consideration for that the case
was remanded back on the Orders of Honble
Supreme Court (ANNEXURE P-15)
That in view of aforementioned facts and the
law petitioner being aggrieved of the judgement
and final order dated 25.5.09 passed by
Honble Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana
32
Justice Disgraced
High Court at Chandigarh in the matter of LPA

No. 29/08 in CWP NO. 16989/99, the petitioner
preferred the present Special Leave Petition
(Civil) under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India.
Place : New Delhi
Date : August 12. 2009
Petitioner-in-person
A-32, Sector 50,
Noida 201, 301 (U.P.)
Justice Disgraced
33
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA NO. 292/08

IN
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.
2.
3.
Union of India through,

The Secretary (Banking),
Ministry of Finance,
(Banking Division)
Govt. Of India,
New Delhi
Chairman and M.D.,
21, Rajindera Place,
New Delhi 110 008
Mr Jaswant Singh,
Ex-Manager, c/o,
Personnel Deptt,
New Delhi 110 008
....................Respondents.
Date August, 09
Filed by
Baldev Singh
34
Justice Disgraced

LPA NO. 292/08

IN
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
1.
2.
3.

(Banking Division)
Govt. Of India,
New Delhi
Chairman and M.D.,
New Delhi 110 008
Mr Jaswant Singh,
Ex-Manager, c/o,
Personnel Deptt,
New Delhi 110 008
....................Respondents.
Justice Disgraced
35
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL under Clause X of Letters

Patent Appeal for setting aside the judgement and order
dated 28.3.2007 passed by Honble Single Bench in C.W.P.
No. 16989/1999 titled Baldev Singh Versus Union of India
and ors. That honble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal in its Order
discussed the case on merit in favour of the petitioner but
dismissed it on the ground/question of maintainability.
That the petitioner filed an SLP (C) in the Honble Supreme
Court. That the same SLP (C) No. 18239/2007 was disposed
of with directions dt. 29.8.08. That the impugnet order
dated 28.3.07 and the Honble Supreme Court directions
dated 29.8.08 are Annexures A-1 and A-2 respectively. That
it is prayed to accept this appeal and allow the wirt petition
No. 16989/99 with costs.
Justice Disgraced
36

HARYANA CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 292 of 2008 in

CWP No. 16989 of 1999
Date of decision : 25.5.2009
Baldev Singh
.....Appellant
Vs.
Union of India and others
....Respondents
CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR.

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE
MASIH
Present : Mr. Baldev Singh appellant in person.
Mr. I.P. Singh, Advocate, for respondent
Nos. 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 to
one of his colleagues namely, Jaswant Singh. In this behalf,
it is pointed out that the aforesaid Jaswant Singh was
appointed as an officer in the respondent-bank on 3.12.1976.
On the basis of the military service rendered by him, he was
promoted in the first instance as Sub Manager on 6.2.1980,
and thereafter he was placed in the Middle Management
Grade Scale-II with effect from 15.12.1983. As against the
aforesaid benefits allowed to Jaswant Singh, although the
petitioner was inducted into the employment of the
respondent bank as an officer on 1.3.1977, yet he has not
been granted any benefit of his military service. Since the
aforesaid claim raised by the appellant was not granted to
Justice Disgraced
37
him, he approached this Court by filling CWP No. 5998 of

1988.* The aforesaid writ petition came to be disposed of
with a direction to the respondent-bank to consider the
claim of the appellant for military service benefits.
In compliance with the directions issued by this Court
in CWP No. 5998 of 1998, the respondent-bank considered
the claim of the appellant but did not find favour with his
claim. Accordingly, by an order dated 27.9.1994, the claim
for military service benefits was denied.
As against the order passed by the respondent-bank
dated 27.9.1994, the appellant approached this Court by
filling COCP No. 523 of 1995, bringing to the notice of this
Court the factual aspect recorded in the opening paragraph
of this order. On the basis thereof, he asserted that grave
injustice has been done to him, and the orders passed by
this Court were deliberately and intentionally disobeyed
while declining the military service benefits to him. COCP
No. 523 of 1995, was dismissed by this Court on 10.10.1995.
The appellant was however, granted liberty to avail of his
remedy in accordance with law.
Consequent upon the dismissal of COCP No. 523 of
1995, the appellant again approached this Court by filing
CWP No. 5047 of 1997. A Division Bench of this Court
passed a detailed order dismissing the aforesaid writ petition
on 6.3.1998. This Court arrived at the conclusion that the
promotion granted to Jaswant Singh was not based on the
military service rendered by him, but was based on his
merit. It also arrived at the conclusion that the Military
Service Rules relied upon by the appellant were inapplicable
to him.
* Justice G.C. Garg had allowed my CWP on merits but Justice J.S. Khehar
deliberately and wrongly quotes as disposed of legal meaning and implication
of both the orders are different.
38
Justice Disgraced
Dissatisfied with the order passed by this Court on

6.3.1998 CWP No. 5047 of 1997, the appellant approached
the Supreme Court by filing a petition for Special Leave to
Appeal (Civil) No. 12773 of 1998. The appellant however,
instructed his counsel to withdraw the aforesaid petition for
Special Leave to Appeal. The Supreme Court accordingly
permitted the appellant to withdraw the aforesaid petition
for Special Leave to Appeal vide order dated 1.9.1998. In
doing so the prayer made by the appellant to grant him
liberty to file a revised petition was declined. The order
passed by the Supreme Court on 1.9.1998 disposing of
petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 12773 of
1998, is being extracted hereunder :
Shri Ujjal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner

states that he has received instructions from the
petitioner to withdraw the S.L.P. with permission to
file a revised petition. We are not inclined to grant
permission to file a revised petition. We dismiss the
S.L.P. as withdrawn.
In view of the fact that liberty was not allowed to the
appellant to file a revised petition before the Supreme Court,
it is apparent that the remedy available to the petitioner
against the order passed by this Court dated 6.3.1998
dismissing CWP No.5047 of 1997, came to be exhausted.
With the dismissal of the aforesaid petition for Special Leave
to Appeal, the order dated 6.3.1998 attained finality.*
Despite the factual and legal position depicted
hereinabove, the appellant again approached this court by
filling CWP No.16989 of 1999. This Court declined to
entertain the aforesaid writ petition, so as to adjudicate the
merits of the claim by the appellant. In fact, the calim of
* Has court procedure (finality) over riding effect over the Constitution itself?
Justice Disgraced
39
the appellant was declined vide order dated 28.3.1997, inter

alia, with the following observations :
The submission of the petitioner only was that some

of the points raised by the petitioner have not been
discussed in the judgement passed by the Honble
Division Bench on 6.3.1998 (Annexure P-I0). Hence
the present writ petition is maintainable.
This submission is misconceived. If some of the
points raised by the petitioner were not discussed in
the judgement dated 6.3.1998, the only remedy open
to the petitioner was to challenge the said judgement
by filing an appeal in the Honble 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 Court to
file a fresh petition on the same cause of action, but
permission was denied by the Honble Supreme
Court. Therefore, the matter has become final at the
level of Honble Supreme Court after the passing of
the order dated 1.9.1998.
Through the present Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant
has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge
dated 28.3.2007 dismissing CWP No.16989 of 1999. The
appellant has argued the instant appeal by himself. His
solitary claim is, that he is fighting for justice, and that
justice should be granted to him. He prays that the same
benefits, as were allowed to one of his colleagues Jaswant
Singh details whereof have been depicted in the opening
paragraph of this order should be allowed to him as well.
We have been trying to explain to the appellant that the
order passed by this Court in CWP No. 5047 of 1997,
decided on 6.3.1998, having attained finality it was not open
to the appellant to approach this Court, and that the learned
40
Justice Disgraced
Single judge was fully justified in dismissing CWP No. 16989

of 1999 vide order dated 28.3.2007. He was not only
disinclined to accept any advice at our hands, he also
expressed that he was not being afforded an opportunity of
hearing to make out his case on merit. We have also perused
the replication filed by the appellant by way of affidavit
wherein serious aspersions have been cast by the appellant
not only against the opposing counsel, but also against the
Honble Judge who decided CWP No.5047 of 1997.
Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the replication depicting the
accusation levelled by the appellant are being extracted
hereunder:
That the contents of the para are admitted.
However, it is pertinent to mention few facts about
this case. That Mr. P.S. Patwalia had appeared and
argued for respondent No.2 but on the Judgement
of 6.3.98 name of Mr. Namit Kumar appears. This
proves complicity of Mr. Justice V.K. Bali and Mr.
P.S. Patwalia. That this judgement was influenced
and that the respondent No.2 had in its written
statement in this case had never claimed that
Jaswant Singh was promoted on merits yet it was
decided that Jaswant Singh was promoted on merits.
That in the present Writ petition also respondent
No.2 has not claimed in any part of its Written
Statement that respondent No.3 Jaswant Singh was
promoted on merits. That SATYAMEV JAYATE
(Truth shall triumph) is basic/fundamental principal
of our Judiciary. That aggrieved by this judgement
petitioner also filed complaints to H.E. The President
of Indian Republic against Mr. Justice V.K. Bali and
Mr. P.S. Patwalia.
That the contents of this para of, writ petition are
Justice Disgraced
41
reitrated. That the respondent No. 2 has not

specifically denied that respondent banks first
Promotions Policy was framed and notified on
12.4.1984 and that Jaswant Singh respondent No. 3
was promoted on 15.12.1983 i.e. five months before
the policy is notified, by giving him the benefits of
military service. That he superceded more than 700
senior and more meritorious officers who were,
promoted after 13 to 14 years. That new fitment
does not permit/allow automatic promotions and
extra several increments. That this factual and legal
arguments were argued before Honble Mr. Justice
V.K. Bali, who preferred to ignore it under the
influence of Mr. P.S. Patwalia,advocate for respondent
No. 2.
We have highlighted the relevant assertions contained
in the aforesaid two paragraphs.
In the first instance, it is imperative for us to adjudicate
upon the merits of the instant appeal. Having given our
thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid primary issue, we
are satisfied, that there can be no exception to the
conclusion drawn by the learned single Judge in his order
dated 28.3.2007, which has been extracted herein above.
The hearing of this case has taken over half an hour of
precious time. The appellant has unnecessarily wasted Court
time. He has without basis and foundation, levelled
accusations against the opposite counsel, he has also not
spared the Honble Presiding Judge who had disposed of
CWP No. 5047 of 1997, vide order dated 6.3.1998. In the
peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied
that the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed with costs.
The instant appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs
quantified at Rs. 10,000/- The aforesaid costs shall be
42
Justice Disgraced
10
deposited by the appellant with the Legal Service Committee

of this Court within one month from today failing which the
Registry is directed to relist this case for motion hearing for
recovery of the aforesaid costs.
Sd/J.S. Khehar
Judge
May 25, 2009
Augustine George Masih

Judge
Justice Disgraced
43
11
(ORDER XVI RULE 4 (1) (a) )

SPECIAL LEAVE PETTION
(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
160/10
Special leave Petition No.................
WITH PYAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF
BETWEEN
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
In the High Court
order the petition
arises :
Baldev Singh, Ex-Officer,
PSB, A-32, Sector 50,
Noida 201, 301 (U.P.)
In this Honble
Court;
Petitioner 1 Petitioner 1
..............Petitioner
AND
1. Union of India through

Respondent No 1 Respondent No1
(Banking Division),
Govt. Of India,
New Delhi
2. Chairman and M.D. Respondent No 2 Respondent No 2
New Delhi 110 008
3. Mr Jaswant Singh,
Respondent No 3 Respondent No 3
Ex-Manager, c/o,
Personnel Deptt.
New Delhi 110 008
Contesting Respondents
44
Justice Disgraced
To
The Honble Chief Justice of India,
And his companion justices of the
Honble Supreme Court of India
The humble petition of
the petitioner
abovenamed.
12
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1. That the petitioner is preferring the present Special
Leave to Appeal against the judgement and final order dated
25.5.09 passed by Honble Division Bench of Punjab and
Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in the matter of LPA No.
292/08 in CWP No. 16989/99 where by the Honble High
Court has been pleased to dismiss the LPA on the ground
of maintainability and not on merits. That the Honble High
Court has also imposed costs on the petitioner although the
case was remanded back to Honble High Court on the
directions of Honble Supreme Court passed on 29.8.08 in
the matter of SLP (C) No. 18239/07 (Annexure P-15)
That the petitioner is senior citizen of India, his date
of birth being 12.12.1944, is competent to file the Special
Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India
against the impugned judgement and final Order dated
25.5.09.
QUESTIONS OF LAW :
2. That the following questions of law arises for the
kind consideration of this Honble Court :
a) Whether the action of the respondent No. 2 in
granting military service benefits to ex-servicemen
re-employed in respondent Bank, including Jaswant
Singh, respondent No. 3, and denying the same
Justice Disgraced
45
13
b)
c)
d)
to the petitioner is not discriminatory and violates

articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India ?
Whether the action of respondent No. 2 in
granting promotions twice and giving several
extra increments to Jaswant Singh, respondent
No. 3, once before nationalisation of the Bank on
6.2.1980 and second time on 15.12.83, after
nationalisation of the Bank. Thus he had
superceded over 700 of senior and more
meritorious officers, giving him his 24 years of
military service benefits, in gross violation of
promotions regulation 17 of PSB (O) SR-82 and
denying the same benefits to the petitoner is not
illegal and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India ?
Whether the action of the respondent No. 2 is
not illegal and arbitrary in not following the
Honble High Courts Order dt. 23.5.94 in CWP No.
5998/88 (Annexure P-6) and rejecting the case of
the petitioner wrongly and also not following the
only legal remedy to file an appeal in Honble High
Court or Honble Supreme Court against the Order
dt. 23.5.94 ?
Whether the OFFICE NOTE OF PROMOTION of
Jaswant Singh, respondent No. 3, when clearly
admits that he had served in the Army for 24 years
was not the ground for his promotions ? That the
same office note is reproduced as under :
The Punjab and Sind Bank Ltd.
(Regd. Office, Hall Bazar, Amritsar)
Sir,
Reg. S. Jaswant Singhofficer B/o Meerut. The
above named joined our bank as officer on
3.12.76. Before joining our bank he was in Indian
Army and served there about 24 years in different
Justice Disgraced
46
14
e)
f)
capacities. He is about 50 years old and he is a

matured officer.
He has been rated as good officer in confidential
report for the last three years. He has capacity to
shoulder higher responsibilities.
Looking into facts stated above, We are of the
opinion that he may be given a chance to work
as Sub-Manager at B/o Meerut.
Submitted for approval.
Sd/30.1.80
that he was given several extra increments, paid
large amount of arrears and superceded 700 of his
more meritorious and senior officers ? That
whether the respondent No 2 can deny that
military service was not consideration for his
promotion and other benefits ?
Whether Regulation 16(1) of the Punjab and Sind
Bank Ltd-1979 is not wrongly interpreted by
Honble High Court when it says,
PROMOTIONS up to Grade II will be made on the
basis of merit having due consideration to
seniority. Promotions to Grade III and above
shall be made entirely on merits.
That the paramount consideration up to Grade-II
is seniority. That how a Junior Jaswant Singh
could supercede 700 of his senior and more
meritorious officers, if military service benefits
were not given to him ?
Whether the granting of promotions as Manager
(placed in Grade Scale-II) to Jaswant Singh,
respondent No 2, by the respondent No. 2, on
15.12.83 almost five months before Banks first
promotions policy is notified on 12.4.84 under
Justice Disgraced
47
15
g)
h)
regulation 17 is not illegal and liable to be

quashed if military service benefits were not the
consideration for his promotion ? That the same
regulations 17 is as under :
17(1) promotions to all Grades of officers in
the Bank shall be made in accordance with
the policy laid down by the Board from time
to time, having regard to Guidelines of the
Government, if Any.
That while rejecting the claim of the petitioner
above mentioned regulation was mentioned and
it was said that new fitment was reason for his
promotion on 15.12.83. That the new fitment was
for all officers including petitioner but only
Jaswant was promoted on 15.12.83. That the
respondent No 2s rejection of petitioners claim
was false, wrong and illegal (Annexure P-7). That
the new fitment dealt with regulations 7,12,12(2)
and 13 but not 17 at all. That whether action of
the respondent No 2 is not illegal ?
Whether the action of the respondent No. 1 and 2
in granting the weightage of military service to
the ECOs/SSCOs while denying to the OTHER
RANKS who joined the military service at the call
of National Emergency in 1963 along with
Emergency Commissioned officers/short Service
Commissioned officers and similarly placed/
situated is discriminatory and violated Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India ?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits
as given to the similarly placed/situated as ECO's/
SSCO's who had joined the Bank's service after
release from military service as direct officer in the
Bank as given in Bank's Ciruclar dated 13.12.86
(Annexure P-4)
Justice Disgraced
48
3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4 (2)
16
That the petitioner has not filed any other petition and
is pending seeking leave to appeal against the impugned
judgement and final order of Punjab and Haryana High
Court dt. 25.5.09 in the matter of LPA No 292/08 in CWP
No. 16989/99, in this Honble Supreme Court.
4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6
That the Annexures P-1 to P-17 produced along with
the SLP(C) are true copies of the documents which formed
part of the record of the case LPA No 292/08 in CWP No.
16989/99 in Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh, against whose impugned judgement and final
order dt. 25.5.09 the leave to appeal is sought for in this
petition.
5. GROUNDS :
I)
Because the Honble D.B. of the High Court has

erred and dismissed the LPA NO. 292/08 in CWP
No. 16989/99 without going into the merits of the
case and passed the impugned order dt. 25.5.09
dismissing the appeal on ground of maintainability
although the case was remanded back to High
Court by the Honble Supreme Court vide its order
dt. 29.8.08. (Annexure P-15)
II) Because the High Court has erred not to appreciate
that 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 the
case. That respondent No. 1 and 3 had never ever
submitted any written statement, therefore, had
never contested the case.
iii) Because the Honble High Court has erred to
Justice Disgraced
49
17
ignore the averments of the petitioner on law and

the facts in the case and did not decide the case
on merits.
iv) Because Honble D.B. of Punjab and Haryana High
Court while passing the final order dt. 25.5.09
has erred and failed to take note of order
passed by another Honble D.B. on 27.2.09 while
issuing Notice of Motion. That the same order is
Annexure P-17. That no material change had
taken place because the respondent No. 2 had not
filed any reply to the Notice issued by Honble
High Court in the case.
v) Because the Honble D.B. of the High Court had
admitted in its impugned order dt. 25.5.09 that
the respondent No 3, Jaswant Singh had been
given military service benefits but had not passed
order on merits but dismissed on ground of
maintainability therefore, erred in deciding the
case in accordance with the law.
vi) Because the Honble High Court has erred
in imposing costs on the petitioner for seeking
justice and had filed LPA No 292/08 on
the directions of the Honble Supreme Court
dt 29.8.08 (Annexure P-15). That the costs would
be imposed on petitioner was told by Honble
presiding Judge to the petitioner at the outset
before petitioner had started his arguments in the
case.
vii) Because the Honble High Court erred in not
appreciating the averments of the petitioner that
his advocate in Honble Supreme Court had not
included 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
50
Justice Disgraced
18
permission to file fresh petition IN PERSON but

advocate misrepresented the case in Court and the
petitioner could not enter the Court Room due to
security reasons and tell the Honble Court In
PERSON about the complicity of my advocate.
That the petitioner REGD. Letter to advocate is
Annexure P-12 with this SLP.
viii) Because the Honble D.B. of the High Court
has erred and wrongly refers to allowed
petition on merits as disposed of. That the CWP
no 5998/88 was allowed on merits on 23.5.94
(Annexure P-6) with specific directions that if
Jaswant Singh is given military service benefits
then the petitioners case/claim be considered.
That meaning of disposed of and allowed on
merits are different in legal parlance. That wrong
word used or wrong interpretation of a word can
cause serious damage to the petitioner.
ix) Bacause the Honble D.B. of the High Court erred
to ignore the directions of the Honble Supreme
Court dt 29.8.08 in SLP (C) No. 18239/07 that the
petitioners case was remanded back to High
Court, therefore, the LPA No. 292/08 in CWP No
16989/99 was filed on the directions of the Apex
Court but Honble presiding judge, when the
case was called for hearing, warned the petitioner
that, you are exploiting judicial process. We are
going to make you pay heavy costs. This was
before petitioner could open his mouth. And
Rs. 10000/- is costs imposed on petitioner for
seeking justice from the court of justice.
x) Because the Honble High Court erred not to
recognise the right of petitioner to seek justice on
merits, which is fundamental in our legal
jurisprudence.
Justice Disgraced
51
19
xi) Because the Honble High Court erred not to

appreciate the arguments of the petitioner that
respondent No. 2 has failed to appeal against the
judgement and final order dt. 23.5.94 in CWP No.
5998/88 in either High Court or the Supreme
Court the legal remedy available to the respondent
No 2, therefore, the order dt. 23.5.94 stands good
for the petitioner and thus he is seeking its
implementation through judicial process in
accordance with the law.
xii) Because Honble High Court failed to appreciate
that respondent No 1 and 3 never ever submitted
written statement, therefore, admitted that Jaswant
Singh, respondent No 3, military service benefits
while promoting him on 6.2.80 and 15.12.83.
xiii) Because the Honble High Court has erred in
making wrong interpretations of the facts and
ignoring material legal issue involved in terms of
regulation 17 of the Punjab and Sind Bank
(officers) Service Regulation 1982 in its order
dt. 6.3.98 in CWP No. 5047/97. That regulation 17
is as under :
Reg. 17 (1). Promotions to all grades of
officers in the Bank shall be made in
accordance with the policy laid down by the
Board from time to time, having regard to the
Guidelines of the Govt. If any.
That Jaswant Singh, respondent No. 3, was
promoted on 15.12.83 and promotion policy
framed on 12.4.84.
xiv) Because the Honble D.B. of the High Court has
erred not to appreciate that the respondent No 2
LPA No. 292/08 in CWP No 16989/99, therefore,
no document has been filed to claim any relief in
Justice Disgraced
52
20
xv)
xvi)
xvii)
xviii)
terms of Sec. 1-A of order VIII nor has denied

anything in the Appeal specifically and cannot
claim any relief in terms of Sec. 3 of Order VIII
of the CPC.
Because the Honble D.B. to the High Court has
erred not to appreciate petitioners averment that
the respondent No 2, in its written statements had
never claimed that Jaswant Singh, respondent
No. 3 was ever promoted on merits on 6.2.80 and
15.12.83 and superceded 700 of his senior and
more meritorious officers and gave him large
amount of arrears. That new fitment does not deal
with regulation 17 at all. That the fitment was for
all the officers including petitioner but only
Jaswant Singh was promoted on 15.12.83 and
none other. That the only consideration for the
promotion of Jaswant Singh was his 24 yearly
military service benefits.
Because the Honble High Court erred not to
consider the petitioners averment that those who
joined the Armed Forces at the call of National
Emergency are not denied the military service
benefits, when the similar benefits are extended
to ECOs/SSCOs in terms of Banks own Circular
(Annexure P-4). It violates Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India.
Because the Honble Supreme court in similar case
of National Emergency service benefits have
already laid down law in favour of the petitioner
and the Honble High Court for not granting the
benefits has erred and violated Article 141 of the
Constitution of India.
Because the Honble High Court has erred in its
ruling dt. 6.3.98 in CWP No 5047/97 that, there
Justice Disgraced
53
21
is no rule of giving military service benefits to any

one in the Bank service as such. That the Honble
D.B. has not taken note of Banks own Circulars
of 18.9.86, 17.11.86 and 13.12.86 which provide
for military service benefits to Ex-servicemen reemployed in Banks service. That proves how
casual approach was adopted while deciding the
case aforementioned.
xix) Because the remedy of appeal needs to be decided
on merits in the interest of justice and not on
technicality of maintainability. That the law
provides for justice to be delivered on merits of
the case.
6. GROUND FOR INTERIM RELIEF :
Because the Honble High Court in its impugned order
dt. 25.5.09 in LPA No. 292/08 in CWP No. 16989/99 has
imposed costs of Rs. 10000/- on the petitioner for arguing
his case on merits on the directions of the Honble Supreme
Courts order dt. 29.8.08 in SLP (C) No. 18239/07 has erred
and not obeyed the Honble Apex Courts directions. That
the petitioner has made out the prima facie case and the
balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioner,
if the ex-parte relief interim as prayed is granted to the
petitioner, otherwise the petitioner will suffer irreparable
injury.
7. MAIN PRAYER :
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and
in the interest of justice it is most humbly prayed. Your
Lordship, may graciously be pleased to grant Special Leave
to Appeal to the petitioner against the judgement and
final order dt. 25.5.09 in LPA No. 292/08 in CWP No.
16989/99 passed by Honble D.B. of Punjab and Haryana
54
Justice Disgraced
22
High Court at Chandigarh, and pass any such order/

direction which your Lordship may deem fit and proper in
the interest of justice.
8. INTERIM RELIEF :
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this

Honble Supreme Court may kindly be pleased to stay the
operation of judgement and final order dt. 25.5.09 in the
matter of LPA No. 292/08 in CWP No. 16989/99 passed by
Honble D.B. of Punjab and Haryana High Court without
going into the merits of the case but dismissed on the ground
of maintainability and imposed costs of Rs 10000/- on the
petitioner inspite of Honble Supreme Court remanding the
case back to Honble High Court in its Order dt. 29.8.08 in
SLP (C) No. 18239/97 (Annexure P-15), and pass such order
as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in this case
and circumstances of the case.
That the petitioner is of about 65 years of age his date
of birth being 12.12.1944, is a senior citizen, this Honble
Court may consider early hearing of the case.
Place : New Delhi
Justice Disgraced

55
23
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 is
challenged and other documents relied upon in those
proceedings. No additional facts, documents or grounds
have been taken therein or relied upon in the Special Leave
Petition. It is further certified that copies of the Annexures/
documents attached to the Special Leave Petition is
necessary to answer the question of law raised in the petition
for the consideration or to make out grounds urged in the
Special Leave Petition for consideration of this Honble
Court. This Certificate is given by the petitioner and the
petitioner whose affidavit is filed in support of the S.L.P.
filed by
New Delhi
(Baldev Singh)
PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
Justice Disgraced
56

24
S.L.P. (C) NO.............................../09
IN THE MATTER OF :
Baldev Singh
................Petitioner
Versus
...........Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Baldev Singh S/o Late S. Kartar Singh Presently residing
at A-32, Sector 50, Noida 2010301 do hereby solemnly
declare and affirm on oath as under :
1. That I am the petitioner in the above mentioned
case, therefore, fully conversant with the facts, law
and the circumstances of the case.
2. That the accompanying SLP (C) has been drafted by
me. The contents are fully understood by me. The
facts given therein are true to my knowledge and
legal submissions are based on my knowledge.
3. That the SLP (C) contains from pages 9 to 24 and
para 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 the
SLP (C) contain 75 pages.
4. That the Annexures P-1 to P-17 are true copies of
their respective originals.
DEPONENT
That the contents of this affidavit are true and correct
to my knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing material
has been kept concealed therefrom.
VERIFIED AT New Delhi
12th of August, 09
DEPONENT
Justice Disgraced
57
25
Annexure P-1
(Regd. Office, Hall Bazar, Amritsar)
Sir,
Reg : Jaswant Singh officer B/o Meerut

The Above named joined our bank as officer on
3.12.76. Before Joining our bank he was in Indian Army and
served there about 24 years in different capacities. He is
about 50 years old and is a matured officer.
He has been rated as good officer in the confidential
report for last three years. He has capacity to shoulder
higher responsibilities.
Looking into facts stated above, we are of the opinion
that he may be given a chance to work as Sub-Manager at
B/o Meerut.
Submitted for approval.
Sd/30.1.80
True copy
Petitioner
58
Justice Disgraced
26
Annexure P-2
THE PUNJAB AND SIND BANK LTD

Staff/RO 809/8 to 10
6.2.1980
The Manager
Meerut.
Dear Sir,
Reg. S. Jaswant Singh Officer
It has been decided to promote the above named as
Sub-Manager and post him as such at your office with
immediate effect. His revised emoluments as Sub-Manager
will be advised to you seprately.
Please note and inform him accordingly.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/Senior Manager (Personnel)
Staff
CC : 1. Area Manager, C Zone (II) for information.
CC : 2. Dy. General Manager, C. Zone, for information.
Sd/Senior Manager (personnel)
True Copy
Petitioner
Justice Disgraced
59
27
Annexure P-3
REGD.
The Executive Director,
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 on
12.8.86 Manager (Personnel) vide its letter No. RO/1971/
866/9980 dated 5.9.86 asked for certificate of pension and
last pay drawn, which are already given in my discharge
certificate of which photocopy was submitted along with my
representation dt. 20.2.96. However, I submitted in writing
again on 12.9.86 (copy enclosed) but no reply has been
received till date.
I enclose, herewith again photocopy of my discharge
certificate from the IAF. Last Salary drawn is at col no. 24
on page 10 and at page 14 and 15. It is shown that I was
discharged with gratuity otherwise at my own request after
completing 9 years of regular service, therefore, no pension
is being paid to me.
I may here add that I was serving as an Airman in the
IAF. I therefore, request your goodself for early release of
additional increments and other benefits entitled to me as an
Ex-serviceman and already given to other officers in the Bank.
Yours faithfully.
12.12.86
(Baldev Singh) officer,
Regional office, PSB, Faridkot 151 203
True Cop y
Petitioner
Justice Disgraced
60
28
Annexure P-4
PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

Staff Cir. No. 1626
All Branches/offices

New Delhi, 110 008
13.12.86
REG : FITMENT OF BASIC PAY OF EX-ECOS/SSCOS

EMPLOYED IN PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS
In terms of Govt. Of India. Ministry of Finance and
Indian Banks Association, Bombays guidelines, the following
policy for extending the benefit to fixation of pay to ExECOS/SSCOS has been adopted.
1. While the pay of existing Ex-ECOs/SSCOs who
joined the bank before 24.8.81, they will be notionally fitted,
as from the date of their appointment, in the lowest scale
of pay applicable to the officers of the bank, at the
appropriate stage after giving the benefit of increments on
account of their past service in defence. Therefore, they will
get their past service increments for the service in the bank
in that scale and fitment in higher scale, of promoted as per
rules in force in the bank. On coming into force of PSB(O)
SR-1982, they will be notionally fitted in the new scale of
pay as on 1.7.79 as per rules applicable, in Scale I and given
increments for service till 31.3.80. The basic pay so arrived
at 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. which
would not be less than notional basic pay so arrived at
irrespective of scale in which they are fitted under the new
regulations. Arrears if any, in this regard, will be payable
from 1.4.80.
2. In the case of ECOs/SSCOs who joined the bank on
or after 24.8.81, these benefits of fixation of pay after taking
Justice Disgraced
61
29
into account their past service in Defence, on the lines of

procedure mentioned in para (1) above will be restricted to
officers who joined pre-commissioned Training or were
Commissioned in the Armed Forces between 1.11.62 and
10.1.68.
3. In addition to those ECO/s/SSCOs covered under
para 2 above, those ECOs/SSCOs who joined PreCommissioned Training or were Commissioned after 10.1.68
will be granted advance increments equal to completed
years 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 the
scale in which they are placed. The pay so arrived at should
not however, exceed the basic pay (including the deferred
pay but excluding of other emoluments) last drawn by them
in the Armed Forces. This will take effect from 1.11.84.
We have allowed the benefits of increments to ExECOs/SSCOs on account of their past service in Defence in
Scale-I of our Bank at time 300-25-475-30-655EB30-775-35845-40-965. However, as a matter of practice, we were
giving a starting basic of Rs 425/- to all officers at that time.
If any officer is eligible to avail the benefit under the scheme
he 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 of
the Branch/office.
Sd/Dy. General Manager (Personnel)
Ture Copy
Petitioner
Justice Disgraced
62
30
Annexure P-5

(A GOVT.
OF
INDIA UNDERTAKING)
RO/866/19222
Dated 22/12/86
The Regional Manager

Faridkot.
REG. S. Baldev SinghOfficer
Dear Sir
We are in reciept of a representation dt. 12.12.86 of
the above named addressed to the Executive Director and
have noted its contents.
In this context please note as per Staff Cir No. 1592
dated 18.9.86, he is not entitled to any additional
increments or any other benefits of his service in Armed
Forces. Because his last salary drawn has already been
protected.
He may be informed accordingly, further he may be
advised to send his representation in future, through proper
channel only.
Yours faithfully
Sd/(Manager) Personnel
True Copy
Petitioner
Justice Disgraced
63
31
Annexure P-6
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT

CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 5998 of 1988
Dated the 23rd May 1994
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE G.C. GARG,
For the Petitioner : Mr. Baldev Singh, Petitioner in Person
For the Respondent :
Mr. I.S. Bajwa, Advocate for respondent No. 2
ORDER
G.C. GARG, J
Petitioner is an ex-serviceman. He served the Indian Air
Force from January 29, 1963 to January 28, 1972 as a
Combatant Member of the said Force. He was selected as an
officer in the Punjab and Sind Bank in the category of exservicemen on March 11, 1977 and was confirmed as such
on March 12, 1978. The Punjab and Sind Bank was
nationalized in the year 1980. The claim of the petitioner is
that he was entitled to the benefit of military service in the
same terms as had been granted by the said bank to one
Jaswant Singh who was directly appointed as an officer in
the Bank after being released from the armed forces. The
grouse of the petitioner is that he has been discriminated in
the matter of grant of such benefits which have been denied
to him by the bank. In para 10 of the writ petition, the
petitioner made a specific averment to the following effect:
Even one of the other ranker Shri Jaswant Singh
who was directly appointed as Officer was granted
weightage of military service and promoted to the
next higher rank long back.
64
Justice Disgraced
32
Respondent No.2 filed a written statement and took

stand that the petitioner was not entitled to the
benefit of military service. Averments as made in
para 10 of the writ petition were denied as under :
Contents of para 10 are wrong and denied. The
petitioner is wrongly claiming the benefit granted to
ECOs, and SSCOs who are not in the same class as
the petitioner is. The Petitioner had worked only as
an Airman and had been relieved from the services
in the year 1972. Thereafter as an independent
outside candidate, he had joined the services of the
bank in the year 1977. Though the bank was a
private body at that time, it had given the time of
his joining. The cases cited in this paragraph are on
a completely different footing.
Contention of the petitioner is that the averments made
by him in the writ petition in respect of Jaswant Singh have
not been denied. According to the petitioner in fact Jaswant
Singh who is shown at the serial Number 753 of the seniority
list of the Managers Middle Management Grade Scale-II,
was granted the benefit of military service whereas the same
has been denied to him though he is similarly situated as
the said Jaswant Singh. The particulars of Jaswant Singh
shown at Sr. No. 753 in the seniority list aforesaid are as
follows :
Name
Date of
Appointed Promoted Date of
Birth
as Officer as Sub
placement
Manager
in Scale II
Jaswant
19.3.1930 3.12.1976 6.2.1980
5.12.1983
Singh
After hearing learned counsel for the respondents and
the petitioner in person. I find that the contention has merit.
The respondent-bank has not denied in any part of its
written statement that aforesaid Jaswant Singh had not
Justice Disgraced
65
33
been granted the benefit of Military Service nor has it been

brought out therein that the case of the petitioner is required
to be considered for the grant of benefit of military service
in the same manner as was granted to said Jaswant Singh
unless he stood on a different footing.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed with the
direction to the respondent bank to consider the claim of
the petitioner for the grant of benefit of military service form
the due date if the aforesaid Jaswant Singh had been
granted 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 considered
within a period of six months and if he is found entitled to
such benefits, the same shall be released to him within the
next three months. No Order as to costs.
May 23, 1994
Words 1400
Sd/
G.C. Garg,
Judge
True Copy
Petitioner
66
Justice Disgraced
34
Annexure P-7

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

Dated 27.9.94
Mr Baldev Singh
Officer,
B.O. Batala Road, Amritsar.
Dear Sir,
In pursuance to the Orders dated 23.5.94 of the Honble
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil
Writ Petition No. 5998 of 1988, the matter was considered
by the Bank. The operative portion of the judgement of the
Honble High Court is reproduced here below :
In the circumstances, I am of the view that the case
of the petitioner is required to be considered for the grant
of benefit of military service in the same manner as was
granted to said Jaswant Singh unless he stood on a different
footing.
direction to the respondent-bank to consider the claim of the
petitioner for the grant of benefit of military service from
the due date if the aforesaid Jaswant Singh had been
granted military service and he (Jaswant Singh) belonged
to the category of Ex-serviceman, like the petitioner. Let the
claim of the petitioner as aforesaid be considered within a
period of six months and if he is found entitle to such
benefits, the same shall be released to him within the next
three months. No order as to costs.
Since no benefit of services rendered by Sh. Jaswant
Singh, Manager (since retired form the services of the Bank)
Justice Disgraced
67
35
with Armed Forces, was given either while placing him

as Sub-manager w.e.f. 6.2.1980, or in placing him in
scale-II on fitment on introduction of the New Service
Regulations viz. Punjab and Sind Bank Officers Service
Regulations, 1982 or in the matter of promotion, we regret
to inform that no benefit of services rendered by you with
Air Force can be given to you in the matter of said
placement, fitment or promotion.
Please also note that after nationalization of the Bank
on 15.4.1980, the service conditions of officer employees are
governed by Punjab and Sind Bank Officers Service
Regulations, 1982. The Service Regulations are statutory in
nature as framed by the Board of Directors of the Bank in
exercise of the powers conferred on them by Section 19 of
the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertakings) Act, 1980. the promotions of officers from
one grade to another are governed by Regulation 17 of the
said Service Regulations. The Promotion Policy is also
framed by the Board of Directors of the Bank having regard
to the Govt. guidelines in exercise of the statutory powers
conferred on them. No benefit of service in Armed Forces
is to be extended in promotion of officers, from one grade
to other in terms of the said statutory , promotion policy
of the bank, framed under the said Regulation l7 of the
Officers Service Regulations, 1982.
Please take note of the above and acknowledge receipt
on the duplicate here of.
Yours Faithfully
H.S. Nandha
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL)
Note : Readers will notice that same promotion regulation 17 mentioned
in last para is violated and Jaswant Singh promoted on 15.12.83
and new fitment does not deal with this regulation. Details in SLP
para XIII and XV, Page 51 and 52, respectively.
Justice Disgraced
68
36
Annexure P-8
REGD.
Chairman and Managing Director,
New Delhi, 110 008
Dear Sir,
REG. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ORDER OF
MAY 23, 1994 NOT IMPLEMENTED
DGM (Personnel), New Delhi has informed me vide
letter No. 3991 dt. 14.3.95 that letter No 2703 dt. 27.4.94
was sent to me by REGD. Post. I may inform you that no
such letter was delivered to me. The matter should be
enquired into and action taken in the matter.
2. However, going by the contents of the DGM(P)s
letter dt. 27.9.94 I may inform you that part of Punjab and
Haryana 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 respondent
and petitioner in person, I find that the contents has
merit. The respondent bank has not denied in any
part of its written statement that aforesaid Jaswant
Singh had not been granted the benefits of military
service nor it has been brought out that the case of
Jaswant Singh stood on different footing than the
petitioner.
I also bring into your kind notice that if Mr. Jaswant
Singh was not given the benefits of military service then how
Mr. Jaswant Singh was promoted on 6.2.80 and placed in
Justice Disgraced
69
37
scale-II on 15.12.83 when senior to him were promoted in

1993 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 these
benefits are not denied to any one.
5. I shall wait for 15 days for implementation of Punjab
and Haryana High Court order dt. 23.5.94 otherwise I shall
proceed with the appropriate action in the matter.
With regards.
Yours Faithfully
19.3.95
(Baldev Singh)
officer,
B.O. Batala Road,
Amritsar.
True Copy
Petitioner
Justice Disgraced
70
38
Annexure P-9

(A GOVT.
OF
INDIA UNDERTAKING)
H.O. Personnel Deptt.

Ref. 23
Bank House
New Delhi,
Dated 5.4.1995
Sh. Baldev Singh,

Officer,
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 the
captioned subject.
The decision taken by the bank in deference to the order
dt. 23.5.94 of the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana
in Civil writ Petition No. 5998/1988, after due consideration
of the matter, was conveyed to you vide our REGD. Letter
No. 2073 dated 27.9.94. A copy of the said letter dated
27.9.94, along with photocopy of P.O. Patel Nagar, New
Delhi postal receipt No. 3730 of 3.10.94, was sent again to
you along with our regd. Letter No 3991 dated 14.3.95.
The accusation levelled and contentions raised by you
in your letter dated 19.3.1995 are wrong and misconceived.
We reitrate our earlier decision conveyed vide our
aforesaid letter of 27.9.94 in this regard.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- Dy. Gen. Manager (P)
True Copy
Petitioner
Justice Disgraced
71
39
Annexure P-10

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

.......................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.
ORDER
Writ Petition filed by Baldev Singh was allowed by
order dated May 23, 1994, with the direction to the bank
to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of benefits
of military service from due date. In compliance with the
order of this court the claim of the petitioner was considered
and rejected.
The grievance of the petitioner in the contempt petition
is that his case is precisely the same as that of Jaswant Singh
and he has been wrongly denied the relief. Be that as it may,
it is not necessary to go into this question in contempt
proceedings. The Order of this court has been complied
with. It will, however, be open to the petitioner to challenge
the order declining him the benefit of military service in
appropriate proceedings according to law.
10.10.95
True Copy
Petitioner
Sd/G.C. Garg
Judge
72
Justice Disgraced
40
Annexure P-11
C.W.P. No. 5047 Of 1997

Baldev Singh
VS
Dt. The 6th March, 1998
The Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali
The Honble Mr. Justice M.L. Singhal
Present : 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 him
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks issuance
of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents
to grant him the benefit of military service at the call of
National Emergency by way of fixation of his pay after grant
of increments and seniority for the purpose of promotions
as granted to the ECOs/SSCOs appointed as officers in the
Bank and other similarly situated persons.
Brief facts, on which the relief asked for, is sought to
rest, reveal that petitioner was appointed directly as Officer
with the respondent Bank on March 11, 1977. He was
confirmed in service on March 12, 1978. Way back in 1986
petitioner applied for grant of ex-serviceman benefits and
when even after the long correspondence that ensured for
that purpose, petitioner got no relief, he filed a Civil Writ
Petition in this Court. The said writ petition came to be
decided on May 23, 1994 by a learned Single Judge of this
Court. Operative part of the said judgement reads this :
After hearing learned counsel for the respondents
and the petitioner in person. I find that the
Justice Disgraced
73
41
contention has merit. The respondent-bank has not

denied in any part of its written statement that
aforesaid Jaswant Singh had not been granted the
benefit of Military Service nor has it been brought
out therein that the case of Jaswant stood on a
different footing than the petitioner. In the
circumstances, I am of the view that the case of the
petitioner is required to be considered for the grant
of benefit of military service in the same manner as
was granted to said Jaswant Singh unless he stood
on a different footing.
direction to the respondent bank to consider the claim
of the petitioner for the grant of benefit of military
service from the due date if the aforesaid Jaswant
Singh had been granted benefits of such service and
he (Jaswant Singh) belonged to the category of exserviceman like the petitioner. Let the claim of the
petitioner as aforesaid be considered within a period
of six months and if he is found entitled to such
benefits, the same shall be released to him within the
next three months. No order as to costs.
On consideration of the matter by the concerned
authorities as directed by this Court, the petitioner lost his
cause and, therefore, the present writ.
At this stage, all that has been contended by the
petitioner, who appears in person, is that judgement dated
May 23, 1994 is binding between the parties and when
Jaswant Singh was granted the military service benefits,
respondent Bank had no option but to grant the same
benefits to the petitioner as well.
Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, respondent
No. 2 entered defense and opposed the cause of the
petitioner. It has, inter-alia, been pleaded that no benefits
74
Justice Disgraced
42
of military service were given to Jaswant Singh and,

therefore, the case of petitioner was rightly rejected vide
orders dated September, 27, 1994 (Annexure P-13). At the
time when petitioner entered service of the respondent
Bank, the bank was in a private sector and later on the bank
was nationalized in the year 1980. No benefit of service
rendered by Jaswant Singh with the Armed Forces was given
to him while placing him as Sub-Manager or in placing him
in Scale II on fitment on introduction of new service
regulations or in the matter of promotion. After
nationalization of the Bank on April 15, 1980, the service
conditions of the officers employed by the Bank are
governed by the Punjab and Sind Bank Officers Service
Regulations, 1982. The service regulations were statutory in
nature as framed by the Board of Directors of the Bank in
exercise of the powers conferred on them by Section 19 of
the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertakings) Act, 1980. The promotions of Officers from
one grade to another were governed by Regulation 17 of the
said service rules. The promotion policy is also framed by
the Board of Directors of the Bank having regard to the
Government guidelines in exercise of the statutory powers.
No benefit in service in Armed Forces was to be extended
in promotion of the officers from one grade to other in terms
of the said statutory regulations.
In the light of the pleadings of the parties, as have been
noted above, the only question that needs to be determined
is as to whether Jaswant Singh had got the benefits of
Military Service and if so, as to whether the petitioner is also
entitled to be said relief. Before we may comment upon the
controversy involved in this case, as has been referred to
above, it requires to be mentioned that whatever order was
passed in favour of Jaswant Singh*, which we will later
delve upon, the same came to be passed before the Bank
Justice Disgraced
75
43
was nationalized and after the nationalization of the Bank,

concededly, service conditions of the employees of the Bank
are governed by the Regulations, as has been mentioned
above. Before there to, Regulations 13, 16 and 3E dealing
with appointment and promotion were as follows :
13. All appointments in, and promotion to officers
grade shall be made by competent authority.
16(1) Promotions upto grade II will be made on the
basis of merit having due regard to seniority.
Promotions to Grade III and above shall be made
entirely on merit.
3(e) Competent Authority means Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer of the Bank or any other
officer designated for the purpose by him."
In so far as promotion upto Grade II is concerned, the
same is to be on the basis of merit having due regard to
seniority. Order benefiting Jaswant Singh reads as follows :
The above named joined our Bank as Officer on
3.12.1976. Before joining our bank he was in Indian
Army and served there upto about 24 years in
different capacities. He is about 50 years old and is
a matured officer.
He has been rated as good officer in the confidential
reports for the last three years. He has capacity to
shoulder higher responsibilities.
Looking into facts stated above, we are of the
opinion that he may be given a chance to work as
Sub Manager at Branch Office Meerut.
* Promotion Reg 17 is violated and Jaswant Singh promoted on
15.12.83. 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 Singh
got military service benefits.
76
Justice Disgraced
44
It is this order which is stated to have benefitted

Jaswant Singh and that too for the reason that he was earlier
in Army. As mentioned above, the positive case of the
respondent-bank is that no military service benefit was given
to said Jaswant Singh.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
going through the records of the case and, in particular,
Annexure P-10, dated January 30, 1980, promoting or
posting Jaswant Singh as Sub Manager, we are quite
convinced that the said officer did not get any benefit on
account of his having earlier served in Army. It is true that
while passing order, Annexure P-10, it was mentioned that
before joining the services of the Bank, the said officer was
in the Army. Promotion at the time was not dependent upon
the service rules and merit being a paramount consideration,
even a junior could score over his senior. The rule dealing
with promotion has since already been reproduced above. It
appears to us that primarily considering that Jaswant Singh
had been rated a good officer in his confidential reports for
the last three years and had capacity to shoulder higher
responsibilities, he was appointed as Sub-Manager and if
while doing so, he had superseded some of his seniors, as is
the case of the petitioner, it can not be said that it was only
on account of Jaswant Singh getting military service benefit.
True, as mentioned above, while passing order, it was
mentioned that Jaswant Singh had earlier served in Army.
There is no rule of giving military service benefit to any one
in the bank service as such. It is only if the Punjab National
Emergency Rules were extended to a particular institute that
one can get the benefits contained in the said Rules. Binding
of such rules, the service put in by a particular person and that
too during emergency is counted while computing the service
of 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
Justice Disgraced
77
45
armed service and accordingly, if he earns promotion, the

same is given on the deemed date. Nothing as such was done
when order. Annexure P-10 posting Jaswant Singh as SubManager 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. Bali
Judge
March 6, 1998
Sd/- M.L. Singhal
Judge
True Copy
78
Justice Disgraced
46
Annexure P-12
REGD.

Sharifpura, Amritsar.
August 22, 98
Dear Mr. Ujjal Singh

After 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 Honble D.B.
mentioned in Writ petition and replication.
3. Respondent Bank did not claim in written statement
that Jaswant Singh was promoted on merits but
decided by Honble D.B. (Not Mentioned)
4. More meritorious than Jaswant Singh not promoted
because they were not Ex-servicemen (Not Mentioned)
5. Not prayed to quash Circular granting benefits to
ECOs/SSCOs similarly placed as petitioner.
6. Reg. 16(i) of the PSB Ltd. OSR-1979 wrongly interpreted
by Honble 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 by
the petitioner-in-person and not by you or any other advocate.
Yours sincerely,
Sd/Mr. Ujjal Singh
(Baldev Singh) officer
415-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.
True Copy,
3. Copy of page A of the Petition.
Petitioner
Note :
My advocate had met dealing hand in Bank and had struk a deal
and had not filed all the papers in SLP. His son-in-law was under
suspension in the same bank.
Author
Justice Disgraced
79
47
Annexure P-13
Item No. 11
Court No. 2
Section IV-B
Supreme Court of India

Record of Proceedings
Petitioner(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)
No. 12773/98
(From the judgement and order dated 6.3.98 in CWP
No. 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 :
Honble Justice S.C. Aggarwal
Honble Justice D.P. Wadhwa
For the petitioner(s) Mr. Ujjal Singh, Adv.,
Mr. M.S. Husain, Adv, for
Mr. R.C. Kaushik, Adv.
For the Respondents;
ORDER:
Shri Ujjal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
states that he has received instructions from the petitioner
to withdraw the SLP with permission to file revised petition.
We are not inclined to grant permission to file revised
petition. We dismiss the SLP as withdrawn.
Sd/True Copy,
S.B. Sharma
Petitioner
Court Master
Note :
It is normal procedure and practice in courts to withdraw

petitions and file amended/revised petitions.
Author
Justice Disgraced
80
48
Annexure P-14
C.W.P. No. 16989 of 1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &

C.W.P. No. 16989 of 1999
Date of Decision: 28.3.2007
Parties Name
Baldev Singh
Petitioner
Vs.
Respondents
CORAM : Honble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal

Present : Sh. Baldev Singh- petitioner in person.
Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, Additional Solicitor General
for respondent No.1
Sh. IP. Singh, Advocate for Respondents No.2
and 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 to
that he has worked in Indian Air Force as Air Craftsman and
other ranks from 29.1.1963 to 28.1.1972 out of which the
period from 29.1.1963 to 10.1.1968 was declared as
emergency period. However, the benefit of military service
was not granted to the- petitioner, although the same was
granted to Jaswant Singh respondent No.3. Hence the
petitioner filed CWP No. 5998 of 1988. This writ petition
was 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 the
direction to the respondent bank to consider the claim
Justice Disgraced
81
49
of the petitioner for the grant of benefits of military

service from the due date of the aforesaid Jaswant
Singh had been granted benefits of such service and
he (Jaswant Singh) belonged to the category of exservicemen like the petitioner. Let the claim of the
petitioner as aforesaid be considered within a period
of Six months and if he is found entitled to such
benefits, the same shall be released to him within the
next three months. No order as to costs.
It was submitted by the petitioner that the said order
has not been complied with by the respondents.
Hence, this writ petition.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that vide order dated
23.5.1994, this court had directed the respondents to
consider the claim of the petitioner for the grant of
the benefit of military service. In compliance with the
said order, the respondents had considered the claim
of the petitioner, but the same was rejected vide
order dated 27.9.1994 (Annexure P-5). The said
order was challenged by the petitioner by filing the
contempt petition (COCP No. 523 of 1995). However,
it was dismissed by this Court vide order dated
10.10.1995 by passing the following operative order :
"The grievance of the petitioner in the contempt
petition is that his case is precisely the same as was
that of Jaswant Singh and he has been wrongly
denied the relief. But that as it may, it is not
necessary to go into this question in contempt
proceedings. The order of this court has been
complied with. This contempt petition is dismissed
and rule is discharged. It will however be open to
the petitioner to challenge the order declining him
the benefit of military service in appropriate
proceedings according to law.
Justice Disgraced
82
50
Thereafter, the petitioner had filed CWP No. 5047 of

1997. It was dismissed by the Honble Division Bench of this
Court on 6.3.1998 (Annexure P-10) by passing a detailed
judgement. The petitioner filed Special Leave to Appeal
(Civil) No. 12773 of 1998. It was dismissed by the Hon ble
Supreme Court on 1.9.1998 (Annexure P-12) as withdrawn.
The submission of the learned counsel for the
respondents was that since the claim of the petitioner was
rejected by the Honble Division Bench of this Court by
passing a detailed judgement on 6.3.1998 (Annexure P-10)
and the SLP flied against this order was got dismissed as
withdrawn 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 some
of the points raised by the petitioner have not been discussed
in the judgement passed by the Honble Division Bench on
6.3.1998 (Annexure P-10). Hence the present writ petition
is maintainable.
This submission is misconceived. If some of the points
raised by the petitioner were not discussed in the judgement
dated 6.3.1998, the only remedy open to the petitioner was
to challenge the said judgement by filing an appeal in the
Honble 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 Court
to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action, but
permission was denied by the Honble Supreme Court.
Therefore, the matter has become final at the level of Honble
Supreme 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 COPY
Petitioner
Justice Disgraced
83
51
Item No. 210
Court No. 9
Annexure P-15
Section IV B
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Petition(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 and
Haryana at Chandigarh)
Baldev Singh
........Petitioner(s)
Versus
......Respondent(s)
(With prayer for interim relief and office report)
(for final disposal)
Date : 29/08/2008 This Petition was called on for
hearing today.
CORAM :
Honble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir
Honble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju
For Petitioner(s) : Petitioner-in-Person
For Respondent(s) : Mr Ajay Pal, Adv.,
Mr. I.P. Singh, Adv.
Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are
of the view that the petitioner should exhaust his remedy
before the Division Bench of the High Court.
Accordingly, we dispose of this Special Leave Petition
with leave to the petitioner to file appeal before the Division
Bench of the High Court, and if an application is made for
condonation of delay in filing the same, the same shall be
favourably considered by the High Court.
(Ganga Thakur)
P.S. to Registrar
True Copy
Petitioner
(Juginder Kaur)
Court Master
84
Justice Disgraced
52
Annexure P-16

LPA NO. 292/08
IN
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
1.
2.
3.

(Banking Division)
Govt. Of India,
New Delhi
Chairman and M.D.,
New Delhi 110 008
Mr Jaswant Singh,
Ex-Manager, c/o,
Personnel Deptt,
New Delhi 110 008
....................Respondents.
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL UNDER CLAUSE X of

Letters Patent Appeal for setting aside the judgement and
order dated 28.3.2007 passed by Honble Single Bench in
C.W.P. No. 16989/1999 titled Baldev Singh Versus Union
of India and ors. That honble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal in
Justice Disgraced
85
53
its Order discussed the case on merit in favour of the

petitioner but dismissed it on the ground/question of
maintainability. That the petitioner filed an SLP (C) in the
Honble Supreme Court. That the same SLP (C) No. 18239/
2007 was disposed of with directions dt. 29.8.08. That the
impugned order dated 28.3.07 and the Honble Supreme
Court directions dated 29.8.08 are Annexures A-1 and A-2
respectively. That it is prayed to accept this appeal and allow
the writ petition No. 16989/99 with costs.
1. That the present Letters Patent Appeal is being filed
to challenge the judgement and order of the Ld. Single Judge
dismissing the CWP No. 16989/99 on 28.3.07 on the ground
of maintainability and not on merits of the case.
2. That the facts and circumstances leading to the filling
of the writ petition referred to above and the judgement and
order passed by the Ld. Single judge are given below :I.
That the petitioners CWP No 5998/88 was
allowed on 23.5.94 with the direction to the
respondent No 2 to consider the case of petitioner
if Military Service benefits are given to Jaswant
singh respondent No 3. That the same order is
Annexure P-l with this Appeal.
ii. That the respondent No 2 did not file any appeal
in the matter of above mentioned order dt,
23.5.94 in CWP no 5998/88 and also rejected the
case of the petitioner vide their letter dated
27.9.94. That the same letter is Annexure P-2 with
this 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 promoted
on 6.2,80 and placed in scale-II on 15.12.83,when
Justice Disgraced
86
54
iv.
v.
senior to him were promoted in 1993 and 1994

after a gap of over 13 years. That the petitioner
received a cryptic and non speaking reply
dt. 5.4.95 where in it was stated.
We reiterate an earlier decision conveyed vide
our aforesaid letter of 27.9.94. in this regard.
That both the letters dt. 19.3.95. and 5.4.95 are
Annexure P-3 and P-4 respectively.
That the petitioner filed COCP No 523/95 for the
implementation of Honble High Court dt. 23.5.94.
That the COCP No. 523/95 was dismissed on
10.10.95 with the relief to the petitioner. It will
however be open to the petitioner to challenge the
order declining him. The benefit of military service
in appropriate proceedings according to Law
That the same order is Annexure P-5 with this
petition.
That the petitioner filed CWP No 504/97 for the
implementation of order passed by Honble High
court on 23.5.94 in the matter of CWP No 5998/
88 but it was dismissed on 6.3.98. By Honble D.B.
by making wrong Interpretations of facts and law
involved and by ignoring certain averments of the
petitioner. However the observation made by it is
matter of relief to the petitioner. It says, At this
stage, all that has been contended by the
petitioner, who appears in person, is that judgement
dated May 23, 1994 is binding between the parties
and when Jaswant singh was granted the military
service benefits respondent Bank had no option
but to grant the same benefits to the petitioner as
well.
That the same order dated 6.3.98. is Annexure
P-6 with this LPA.
Justice Disgraced
vi.
87
55
That the petitioner aggrieved by the wrong and

erred order passed by the Honble D.B. filed and
SLP (C) in Honble Supreme court through an
advocate who turned out to be a great cheater and
did not include several vital points in the SLP (C).
That for security reasons petitioner could not
enter court room and tell the facts before the
Honble court. That petitioner caught up in
difficult and complex situation sent a REGD. Letter
to advocate to withdraw the SLP (C) with
permission to file revised petition. That the same
letter dt.22.8.98 and Honble Supreme Courts
order dt.1.9.98 in the SLP (C) No. 12773/98 are
Annexure P-7 and P-8 with this appeal respectively.
vii. That the petitioner was in dilema as to what to
do now. He was struck with an idea to file another
writ petition in the Honble High Court bringing
in all the facts before the Court. That the truth
prevailed and the Honble D.B. of the High Court
issued notice in CWP No. 16989/99 and the ball
was set rolling again. And the rest is legal history.
viii. That the respondent No 2 had promoted Jaswant
Singh, respondent No 3 twice by giving him the
benefits of military service on 6.2.1980, when the
Bank was in private sector and on 15.12.1983
after the bank was Nationalized on 15.04. 1980
respectively. That the office Note of promotion of
Jaswant Singh dated 30.1.1980 and the actual
promotion letter dt.6.2 1980 are Annexure P-9
and P-10, respectively.
ix. That the respondent No 2 had been issuing
circulars declaring certain benefits for Exservicemen re-employed in the Bank on 18.9.86,
17.11.86 and 13.12.86. That the staff circular No
Justice Disgraced
88
56
1626 dt 13.12.86 is relevant in the case of the

petitioner and the same is Annexure P-11 with this
LPA. That this circular violates Art 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India. That the benefits of
National Emergency are extended to ECOs/
SSCOs and ignores OTHER RANKS who are
similarly placed like the petitioner who had also
joined the Indian Air Force at the call of National
Emergency.
x. That the petitioner before filing CWP No. 5998/
88 had been making representations to the
respondent No.2 for military service benefits. That
the last representation was made on 12.12.86 and
refusal by the bank was made on 22.12.86. That
both the letters are Annexure P-12 and P.13 with
this LPA respectively.
3. That the judgement and order dt. 28.3.2007 of the
Honble LD. single judge Bench deserves to be reversed and
the writ petition deserved to be allowed on merits on the
following grounds of appeal.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
i.
ii.
Because the Honble Single Bench has erred in Law

and facts and has not passed judgement and final
order dt. 28.3.07 on merits in the matter of CWP
No. 16989/99 but on maintainability. Although
the Honble Justice S.N Aggrawal had admitted in
its order that Jaswant Singh, respondent No 3 had
been given military service benefits, therefore, the
impugned order is wrong.
Because the Honble Ld.Single Bench has erred in
not appreciating the averments of the petitioner
that seven vital points were not included in the
SLP (C) No. 12773/98 by his advocate, through
Justice Disgraced
89
57
iii.
iv.
v.
whom the petition was filed, the petitioner had to

write him by Regd. Post letter dt. 22.8.98 to
withdraw the SLP (C)with the permission to file
revised petition.
Because the Honble Ld. Single Bench has erred in
not appreciating the facts mentioned in Annexure
P-7, without vital points the SLP (C) No. 12773/
98 would have failed on merits. That the
advocates complicity in the matter was timely
noted by the petitioner. That the petitioner could
not enter the court for security reasons to
personally argue the case and tell the truth in the
matter to the Honble D.B. of the Supreme Court.
But still the justice was wanting.
Because the Honble High Court erred in not
appreciation the petitioners averments in the
replication dt.28.3.07 that no new grounds were
added in the CWP No.16989/99 nor were any
pointed out by the respondent No 2 in its written
statement. That the Honble Supreme Courts
order dt 1.9.98 (Annexure p-8) is not violated in
any manner, whatsoever.
Because the Honble High Courts Single Judge
erred in not appreciating the argument of the
petitioner that the respondent No2 has failed to
appeal against the judgement and order dt.
23.5.94 in the CWP No. 5998/88 allowed in
favour of petitioner, either in Honble High Court
or in Honble Supreme Court in accordance with
law, therefore, admitted that Jaswant Singh,
respondent No. 3 was given military service
benefits when promoted on 6.2.80 and 15.12.83
that when Jaswant Singh was promoted he
superseded more than 700 of his seniors and
90
Justice Disgraced
58
more meritorious officers and large amount of

arrears were paid to him on account of his 24
years of military service.
vi. Because the Honble Ld. Single Bench erred not to
appreciate the argument of the petitioner that
only respondent No.2 had filed its written and the
respondent No.1 and 3 did filed written statement
even after completion of service to them. That it
is also pertinent to mention here that even Honble
Supreme Court in the matter of SLP (C)No.
18239/07 service to the respondent No. 1 and 3
was completed, they did not file their respective
Counter Affidavits, therefore, admitted the fact
that Jaswant Singh was given military service
benefits.
vii. Because the Honble Single Bench erred in
its impugned order dt. 28.03.07 in CWP NO.
16989/99 to appreciate Jaswant Singh, respondent
No. 3 was promoted on 6.2.80 when the respondent
Bank was in private sector and again on 15.12.83
when the respondent Bank was nationalized on
15.4.80. both time giving him the military service
benefits.
viii. Because the Honble Single Bench erred in not
appreciating the petitioners averment that the
order dt. 6.3.98 in CWP NO. 5047/97 had wrongly
interpreted the Office Notice of promotion of
Jaswant Singh (Annexure P-9). Respondent No. 3
and the promotion regulation 16 (1) of the PSB
(Officers) Service Reg. 1979, which reads
as below:
Promotions upto Grade-II will be on the basis of
merit having due regard to seniority. Promotions
to Grade-III and above shall be made on merits.
Justice Disgraced
91
59
ix.
x.
xi.
And had also ignored that after Nationalization

promotion Regulation l7 and Promotions Policy
dt. 12.4.84 were effective. That military service
benefits were given superseding 700 officers.
Because the Honble Single Bench erred in not
deciding the case on merits that when Jaswant
Singh, respondent No.3 was promoted on 15.12.83
then promotion regulation 17 of Punjab and Sind
Bank (officers) Service REG. 1982 were in force.
Reg 17 (1). Promotions to all Grades of officers
in the Bank shall be made in accordance with the
policy laid down by Board from time to time,
having regard to Guidelines of the Government,
if any.
That the respondent, Banks first Promotions
Policy 1984 was notified on 12.4.1984 almost four
months after Jaswant Singh was promoted (placed
in Scale - II) on 15.12.83 giving him 24 years of
his military services benefits and paid him large
amount of arrears. That new fitment was for all
officers including petitioner but only Jaswant
Singh was promoted on 15.12.83.
Because the Honble Single Bench has erred to not
to appreciate the petitioners averment that the
respondent No. 2 in its written statement filed in
the matter of CWP No. 16989/99 and also in the
matter of CWP No. 5047/97 had never claimed
that Jaswant Singh, respondent No.3 was promoted
on merits on 6.2.80 and 15.12.83, respectively,
therefore, it is admitted that his promotions were
purely made on the basis of his 24 years of military
service benefits and large amount of arrears were
paid to him both times.
Because the Honble Single Bench erred to not to
Justice Disgraced
92
60
xii.
xiii.
xiv.
xv.
appreciate that the order dt. 6.3. 98 in CWP No.

5047/97 had not reversed the order dt. 23.5.94
in CWP No. 5998/88, therefore, the Order dt.
23.5.94 stands and the petitioner is legally right/
correct to seek its implementation.
appreciating the petitioners averment that the
respondent.No 2, while filling written statement
had not annexed any document to claim any relief
in terms of sec. I-A of order VIII of CPC.
Because the Honble Single Bench has erred in not
appreciating that the respondent No.2 had not
specifically denied in terms of Sec. 3 Order VIII
of the CPC that Jaswant Singh, respondent No.3
had not been given military service benefits while
promoting him on 6.2.80 and after Nationalization
of the bank on 15.12.83 and that he had
superseded 700 of his senior and more meritorious
officers and was paid large amount of arrears on
both the occasions.
Because the Honble Single Bench has erred in not
appreciating the patitioners averment that those
who had joined the Armed Forces at the call of
National Emergency are not denied military
service benefits. That the Order dt. 6.3.98 had
wrongly observed that, there is no rule of giving
military service benefits to anyone in the Bank
services as such. In fact, on the contrary, there are
Circulars dt. 18.9.86, 17.11.86 and 13.12.86 for
granting of various benefits to Ex-serviceman.
That the relevant Staff Cir. No. 1626 dt. 13.12.86
is Annexure P-11 with this LPA.
deciding the case on merits on 28.3.2007 but on
Justice Disgraced
93
61
maintainability. That it is pertinent to mention

here that in Honble Supreme court also respondent
No. 2 shirked to argue the case on merits. That
the respondent No 2 is expert in using methods
not permitted in law. But the petitioner believes
in SATYAMEV JAYTE. Truth is very powerful
weapon to destroy evil designs.
It is, most respectfully prayed that this Letters Patent
Appeal may please be allowed and the order passed by
Learned Single Judge Bench dismissing the Writ Petition not
on merits but on maintainability be set aside and the writ
petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with
costs. That it is further prayed that the petitioner is senior
citizen of 64 years. His date of birth being 12.12.44. That
the case may kindly be accorded priority in accordance with
the procedure of the Honble High Court.
Chandigarh
Dated, September 18,2008
(Baldev Singh)
VERIFICATION
Verified that contents of Para 1 to 3 spread over pages
1 to 13 are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of
the LPA is false and nothing has been concealed there from.
Chandigarh
18.9.08
(Baldev Singh)
Justice Disgraced
94
62
Annexure P-17

LPA No. 292/ of 2008
Present : Mr. Baldev Singh, appellant in Person
C.M. No. 1125 of 2008
This application has been filed under section 5 of the
Limitation Act, for condemnation of delay of 542 days in
filing the present appeal.
The appellant, who appears in person, has argued that he
was pursuing his case before the Honble Supreme Court,
therefore, the delay of 542 days in filing the appeal be
condoned. He has also placed reliance on Annexure A-2,
wherein Honble Supreme Court has observed that, if an
application 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 the
delay 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 in
refilling the appeal is condoned.
MAIN CASE
The appellant, who had served in the Indian Air Force
as Air Craftsman, has prayed that he be given the benefit
of the military service rendered by him. He submits that
he had rendered service from 29.1.1963 to 10.1.1968,
which was declared as Emergency period, and hence, he is
entitled to be given the benefits of the same. He has also
brought to our notice the case of one Jaswant Singh
respondent 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 Copy
Petitioner
Justice Disgraced
95

I.A. NO.
OF 2009
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) NO.
OF 2009
IN THE MATTER OF :
Baldev Singh
.....Petitioner
Versus
.....Respondents
AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND

ARGUE IN PERSON
TO
THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS OTHER COMPANION JUDGES
OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE
PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH AS UNDER :
1.
2.
That the Petitioner has filed Special Leave Petition

(Civil) Diary No. 23903/09 in the aforementioned case
and is pending in the Supreme Court Registry for
hearing in this Honble Court.
All the facts and circumstances of the case have been
fully set out in the Special Leave Petition and the
Petitioner craves leave of this Honble Court to refer to
and reply upon the same in support of the present
application and he seeks permission of the Honble
Court to argue the matter in person.
96
Justice Disgraced
PRAYER
In the facts and circumstances of this present case this
Honble Court may graciously be pleased to:
a) allow the petitioner to appear and argue in person in
this petition before this Honble Court; and
b) pass such other or further order or orders as this
Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case in the interest of
justice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE HUMBLE
PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
FILED BY:
Filed on: 22.12.2009
(BALDEV SINGH)
Justice Disgraced
97

I.A. NO.
OF 2009
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. OF 2009
IN THE MATTER OF :
Baldev Singh
.....Petitioner
Versus
.....Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Baldev Singh, S/o Sri Kartar Singh, aged about 65
years, R/O A-32, Sector-50, Noida, U.P. Presently at New
Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
1.
2.
That I am the petitioner and was well acquainted with

the facts and circumstances of the case and hence
competent to swear this affidavit.
That the contents of accompanying An Application for
permission to appear and argue in person in this S.L.P.
are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is
false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Verified at New Delhi on this 22 nd day of December,
2009.
DEPONENT
Justice Disgraced
98
REGD/Speed post
H.E. The President of India,
Rashtrapati Bhawan,
New Delhi 110 001.
SUBJECT : JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA HIGH COURT VIOLATES OATH OF
OFFICE, IGNORES HONBLE SUPREME
COURTS DIRECTIONS DT. 29.8.08, DEVIATES
FROM ORDER DT. 27.2.09 OF HONBLE D.B.
OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND
IMPOSES COSTS OF RS. 10000/- ON
PETITIONER OUT OF ILL-WILL
1.
2.
That the Petitioners case was remanded back to

Honble High Court by Honble Supreme Court vide Its
order dt. 29.8.08. That the copy of the same order is
ANNEXURE C-1 here with for ready reference please.
That Honble D.B. of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court passed the ORDER on 27.2.09 in the matter of
LPA NO 292/08 in CWP No. 16989/99. That the
relevant part of it is reproduced as under:
MAIN CASE :
The appellant, who had served in the Indian Air
Force as Air Craftsman, has prayed that he be given
the benefit of military service rendered by him. He
submits that he had rendered service from 20.01.1963
to 10.01.1968, which was declared as Emergency
period, and hence, he is entitled to be given the
benefits of the same. He has also brought to our
notice the case of one Jaswant Singh respondent
Justice Disgraced
99
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 and
the Order dated 27.02.2009 are ANNEXURE C-2 and C-3
respectively herewith for ready reference please.
3. That even after completion of service none of the three
respondents filed and reply/written statement to the
Notice Issued by Honble D.B. of the High Court,
especially respondent No. 2, the main contesting
respondent in the case. Therefore, admitted the facts
of the case.
4. That on 25.5.09 LPA No. 292/08 in CWP No.
16989/99 was listed before Honble D.B. comprising
Justice J.S. Khehar and Justice Uma Nath Singh.
However, Justice Uma Nath Singh took leave on that
date and another Honble Judge sat along with Justice
J.S. Khehar. That as soon as my case was called out
for hearing, Justice J.S. Khehar told me that I am
exploiting Judicial process and that heavy costs would
be imposed upon me. This was before I as petitionerin-person could open his mouth for arguments. This
shows how the frame of mind of Justice J.S. Khehar
was. That he had already developed ILL-WILL towards
me. That he had lots of discussion with his brother
Judge and in the end did not decide my case on merits
but dismissed on ground of maintainability and also
imposed costs of Rs. 10000/-, which as an obedient
citizen and petitioner has paid the amount. That the
copy of final judgement and Order dt. 25.5.09 in the
matter of LPA No 292/08 in ANNEXURE C-4 with this
complaint for ready reference.
PRAYERS :
That in view of the facts stated above is it in the interest
100
Justice Disgraced
of justice in the country and especially in the State of

Uttarakhand that he be appointed as Chief Justice of that
State.
That has he not violated oath of office and shown ILLWILL towards me the petitioner and imposed costs of
Rs 10000/- knowing fully well that the case was remanded
back by Honble Supreme Court vide its Order dt. 29.8.08
and that the petitioner was merely obeying the Orders of
the Honble Supreme Court. And that the another D.B. of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court had passed the Order
on merits in favour of the petitioner on 27.2.09, while
issuing 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 Honble Judge to dispense justice without fear or
favour or ill-will but not to do injustice without caring for
the Supreme law, Supreme Court and another D.B. of the
same High Court.
That the matter is very grave and deserves serious
action at the highest level, in the interest of reputation of
Judiciary 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 with
the S.L.P. respectively and Annexure C-4 is Impugned order of
the SLP at Pages 34 to 42 of this book.
Author
Justice Disgraced
101
AFFIDAVIT
I, Baldev Singh son of Shri Kartar Singh and presently
residing at A-32, Sector 50, Noida 201 301 (U.P.) do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under :
1.
2.
3.
That my Date of Birth is 12.12.1944 (twelve December

nineteen forty four).
That I have filed an complaint/petition before H.E., the
President of India. That the compaint/petition is dated
1.9.09. That it is of three pages, and four Annexures
containing total of pages.
That the facts stated in the complaint/petition dt.
1.9.09 are correct and genuine one.
DEPONENT
DECLARATION :
I, the above named deponent do hereby declare that
the facts stated in above affidavit are correct and true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept
concealed therein.
Dated : Sept. 2, 09
Place : Noida
DEPONENT
Justice Disgraced
102
ITEM NO. 76
Court No. 3
SECTION IVB
SUPREME 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 LPA
No. 292/2008 in CWP No. 16989/1999 of the HIGH COURT
OF 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 :
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPH
For Petitioner(s)
Petitioner-In-Person,
For Respondent(s)
ORDER
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed
(Ganga Thakur)
PS to Registrar
(M.S. Negi)
Court Master
Justice Disgraced
103
OATH OF OFFICE OF SUPREME/HIGH

COURT JUDGE*
I.............having been appointed Chief Justice/Justice
of Supreme/High Court at or of...............do swear in the
name of God/Solemnly affirm, that I will bear true faith and
allegiance 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 office
without fear or favour, affection or ill-will that I will uphold
the constitution and the laws.
* Third Schedule of the Constitution of India.

Justice Disgraced By: Baldev Singh

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Justice Disgraced By: Baldev Singh

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.

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

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

Other books by the same Author :

Sikhism and the Sikhs (Ed.)

Was Bhindranwale a Congress Creation ?

Pangs of a Petitioner for Justice

Repeated Rape of Justice

Scam of Illegal Promotions (in press)

ibKu mih AMimRq (spw.)

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

Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere

Martin Luther King

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

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

Late Sirdar Kapur Singh

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

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

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

SLP (c) No. 160/10

(office note of Promotion of Jaswant Singh)

(Representation by the Petitioner)

(Banks Circular about benefits to ECOs/SSCOs) 60-61

(Banks rejection letter)

(C.W.P. No. 5998/88 allowed

(Banks denial letter)

(Banks cryptic non speaking reply)

P-10 (COCP No. 523/95 of Punjab and

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

P-11 (C.W.P. No. 5047/97 dismissed by

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

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

P-14 (C.W.P. No. 16989/99 of Punjab and

P-15 (SLP (C) No. 18239/07 in Supreme Court

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

Copy of Supreme Court order dt. 8.2.2010. (SLP(C) No. 160/10

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

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

after independence. We were trained by him to be honest and

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

come from the same society which produces corrupt

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

advocate P.S. Patwalia (he is son of Justice Kuldip Singh of

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

Service was already completed. The all powerful registry

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

hearing in rare cases. CBI had arrested three employees of

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

the petition is dismissed, the decision has to be taken on

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

List the matter on 12th February, 2008.

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

Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice Markandey Katju. When my

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

Never mind, an order is order and has to be obeyed. I

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

is sure to become Chief Justice of India. He is nephew of Prof.

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

confirming death sentence on Kehar Singh, convict in murder

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Union of India and ors

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA