Partly allowed

Kuljinder Singh v. State of Pb. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Apr 2010CWP/12044/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking officiating promotion exempting the petitioner from Intermediate School Course, the Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of the petition by directing an Officers’ Committee constituted in a related proceeding to consider the claim independently within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Officers’ Committee to consider the petitioner’s claim for officiating promotion independently and uninfluenced by the respondents’ stand within three months.

Kuljinder Singh Vs State of Pb. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

1 –

¶2

CWP No.12044 of 2006.doc

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.12044 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.04.2010

Kuljinder Singh

VS.

State of Punjab and others

¶10

. . . . . Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶13

****

¶14

1. Whethis Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶16

3. Whethis the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶17

¶18

Present: Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner

¶19

Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab

¶20

¶21

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶22

(1). The petitioner, who joined the Police Department as a Constable on 04.04.1985 and has already risen to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector, seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to grant him officiating promotion on the basis of exemption already granted to him from passing the Intermediate School Course and on the analogy of respondents No.4 & 5.

¶23

(2). The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit to which a rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner.

¶24

(3). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the above mentioned claim of the petitioner can effectively be gone into by the Officers’ Committee constituted by this Court vide

¶25

2 –

¶26

CWP No.12044 of 2006.doc

¶27

order dated March 4, 2010 passed in CWP No.566 of 2010 titled as Ranjit Singh and others vs. State of

¶28

Punjab and others . Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Officers’ Committee to consider the petitioner’s claim independently and uninfluenced of the stand already taken by the official respondents before this Court and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Committee shall be at liberty to hear the petitioner in person as well as other police personnel(s), if any, likely to be affected by the outcome. The Committee shall also consider the petitioner’s claim/contention that he is entitled to the relief on the analogy of respondent No.4 & 5. The petitioner shall be at liberty to place before the Committee a complete set of pleadings which shall be treated as a representation on his behalf.

¶29

(4). Ordered accordingly.

¶30

(5). Dasti .

¶31

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶32

06.04.2010

¶33

vishal shonkar

Kuljinder Singh v. State of Pb. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuljinder Singh v. State of Pb. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Chander Syal Vs State of Pb.Etc.

Rampyari Vs State of Pb. & Ors.

Paramjit Singh Basra Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Pramod Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Bhola Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dalbir Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.