SAKANDER SINGH VIRK vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — CWP/7519/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 24th March 2026.
CNR: PHHC010416502026
e-Filing Number
09-03-2026
Filing Number
CWP/14240/2026
Filing Date
10-Mar-2026
Registration No
CWP/7519/2026
Registration Date
10-Mar-2026
Judge
Mr. Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa
Coram
Mr. Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa
Bench Type
Single
Category
68.21 - SERVICE-PUNJAB POLICE ( 779 )
Judicial Branch
WRITS -I BRANCH
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
--DISPOSED OF
Last updated 11-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SAKANDER SINGH VIRK
Adv. Anu Pal
-
2.State of Punjab and Others
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
-
2.State of Punjab and Others
-
3.Director General of Police, Punjab
-
4.Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar
-
5.Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
Mr. Justice Deepinder Singh NalwaView PDF
Case Summary: CWP-7519-2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of petitioner Sakander Singh Virk's challenge to the denial of service extension from age 58 to 60 years. The court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar (Rural) to reconsider the case within one month in light of a coordinate bench's prior judgment in Prem Nath's case, which established a right to continue service until age 60, and required a reasoned order if the claim is again rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CWP/7519/2026
Case Summary: CWP-7519-2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of petitioner Sakander Singh Virk's challenge to the denial of service extension from age 58 to 60 years. The court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar (Rural) to reconsider the case within one month in light of a coordinate bench's prior judgment in Prem Nath's case, which established a right to continue service until age 60, and required a reasoned order if the claim is again rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts