TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill View
Don't Miss
Advertisement

10 yrs after Gurdaspur terror attack, HC orders promotion for injured inspector

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that trial courts must ensure all witnesses listed in the challan or supplementary challan are summoned and examined, unless explicitly given up by the prosecution. - File photo

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

A decade after sustaining injuries in an encounter with Pakistan-based terrorists, disguised in army uniform, a Punjab Police inspector has been held entitled to promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Advertisement

The attack took place on the Dinanagar police station in Gurdaspur district on July 27, 2015.

Advertisement

He had moved the court after his claim to promotion was rejected on the grounds that he had already been awarded the Police Medal for Gallantry from the President.

“The government, at its meeting, considered the incident at the police station and decided to grant one promotion to each employee. This was a conscious decision to grant promotion which was never withdrawn or modified,” Justice Jagmohan Bansal asserted.

The Bench, during the course of the hearing, was told that the petitioner had joined the Punjab Police as ASI (Probationer) in 1992. He was serving in the Punjab Armed Police cadre when the 2015 terror strike took place. “At about 5.15 am, terrorists from Pakistan came to Dinanagar in army uniform. They snatched a Maruti car and attacked the police station at Dinanagar. The petitioner, along with other policemen, reached the police station and bravely faced terrorists and was injured in the encounter,” the Bench was told.

Advertisement

It was added that he subsequently received both the President’s Police Medal for Gallantry with a monthly allowance of Rs 3,000 and the Parakaram Padak with Rs 50,000.

Referring to the record, Justice Bansal asserted that it was evident that the petitioner actively participated in the encounter with foreign militants and was injured and admitted to a hospital before being awarded. “These awards confirmed participation of the petitioner in anti-terrorist front,” the court added.

The Bench observed that the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, prepared a proposal “with respect to the recognition of the ones who participated in the cross-border attack on July 27, 2015”. The Punjab Council of Ministers then unanimously decided that the injured employees would be promoted.

“The respondent has granted the benefit of promotion to other employees, who were holding rank lower than inspector. It means the respondent has implemented the decision. The respondent either in reply or orally is not disputing the fact that decision was taken by Council of Ministers and it was implemented qua other employees,” Justice Bansal observed.

The Bench noted that inspector Bikramjit Singh Brar was appointed DSP following his participation in an encounter with “notorious gangster Vicky Goundar” in addition to the President’s Police Gallantry Award.

“This court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner was also entitled to promotion from the rank of inspector to DSP. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. It is made clear that petitioner shall not be entitled to any financial benefits for the period he was not holding the rank of the DSP,” Justice Bansal concluded.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement