Dismissed

Raj Kumar v. N P S Aulakh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2009COCP/1414/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge bench disposed of an application to initiate contempt proceedings. The petitioner sought contempt as the State failed to pass a speaking order on his legal notice as directed by a prior Division Bench. The State filed a reply asserting the speaking order was passed, and the court dropped the contempt application.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings against the respondents were dropped.

Raj Kumar Vs N P S Aulakh and Anr. — Contempt of Court | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.O.C.P. No.1414 of 2008 Date of Decision : May 07, 2009

Raj Kumar

....Petitioner

Versus

N.P.S. Aulakh, Director General of Police, Punjab and another

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶9

Present : Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate

¶10

Mr. M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab

¶11

T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)

¶12

While disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the Division bench vide order dated May 30, 2008, directed the respondents to take final decision by passing a speaking order on the legal notice submitted earlier by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order.

¶13

According to the petitioner, despite the aforementioned order, no speaking order was passed by the respondents on his legal notice and, therefore, he prayed for initiating contempt proceedings against them.

¶14

Reply has already been filed on behalf of respondent No.2. In para 3 of the same, it stands mentioned that a speaking order has since been passed on 13.3.2009 on the legal notice submitted earlier by the petitioner and a copy of the order has already been delivered to the petitioner free of cost under his proper signatures. The copy of the order has been appended with the

¶15

-2-

¶16

C.O.C.P. No.1414 of 2008

¶17

reply as Annexure R/2-1. It stands mentioned therein that the petitioner did not deserve for being considered for the post of ASI at this time because he had already availed the benefits of priority. The Department has placed reliance on instructions issued by the Joint Secretary, Home Department, Governmnet of Punjab vide Memo No. 1/07/88-21(I) 40691 dated 29.11.1989 and by DGP, Punjab, Chandigarh vide office endorsement No. 7871-7900/E-3 dated 7.6.1990 that whenever a police officer/official killed during an encounter with extremists, the family member was to be given priority category-wise and according to these instructions, the petitioner was not entitled to be promoted to the post of ASI.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner is wanting out of turn promotion on compassionate ground to the post of ASI, which cannot be granted in view of the aforementioned instructions. It is, however, stated that as and when the case of the petitioner for the grant of promotion to the post of ASI becomes due, the necessary benefits shall be granted to him.

¶19

In view of the above, the contempt proceedings are dropped.

¶20

( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE

¶21

May 07, 2009 satish

Raj Kumar v. N P S Aulakh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. N P S Aulakh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Jethu Mal Mohan Lal and Anr. Vs A.S. Guliani and Anr.

Monu Vs Navdeep Singh and Ors.

Inderpal Singh Vs S.P.S.Sohan, Dir. Health & Anr.

Kuldip Singh and Ors. Vs Ram Gopal Chadha and Ors.

Gurnam Singh Vs Rajiv Kumar Batra and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Vs Anurag Rastogi, Commissioner and Director Gen. Sch. Edu. Hry.