Disposed

Jugal Kishore v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Feb 2010CWP/3039/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeking promotion as DSP and retention of seniority over a junior whose seniority was enhanced via a civil decree. Court directs authorities to consider petitioner's representations and pass a speaking order. Case disposed with direction for consideration.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Nos.1 & 2 to consider petitioner's representations and dispose of the matter by passing a speaking order by 30.4.2010.

Jugal Kishore Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.3039 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 19, 2010.

Jugal Kishore Sareen

..... Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab and others

¶7

..... Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶9

Present : Mr.L.M.Gulati, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

-.-

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶16

The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider and promote him as Deputy Superintendent of Police w.e.f. the date his juniors, especially respondent No.4 has been promoted.

¶17

Shorn of the details, the case of the petitioner is that right from the very inception, especially as Assistant Sub Inspector and Sub Inspector or when they were promoted as Inspectors, the petitioner was ranked senior to respondent No.4 throughout. The petitioner was promoted as Inspector w.e.f. 30.6.2005. Respondent No.4, however, filed a civil suit to which the petitioner was not a party. The said civil suit was decreed by the Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2002 (Annexure P-

¶18

C.W.P.No .3039 of 2010 2

¶19

and pursuant thereto, respondent No.4 has now been promoted as Inspector retrospectively w.e.f. 23.10.2001 and as a result thereto, has become senior to the petitioner. It is urged that the Civil Court decree is not binding on the petitioner and he is entitled to retain his seniority over and above respondent No.4.

¶20

The petitioner has further averred that despite repeated representations including dated 29.10.2008 (Annexure P-4) and 12.2.2009 (Annexure P-5), no heed has been paid to his claim. The petitioner is said to be due for retirement on 31.8.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and considering the nature of relief sought by him and the fact that he is near to his retirement, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondent Nos.1 & 2 to consider the afore-mentioned representations made on behalf of the petitioner and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order well before 30.4.2010. Needless to say that if the petitioner's claim is accepted, the consequential benefits be also granted to him by 30.4.2010.

Ordered accordingly.

Dasti.

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

19-02-2010

Mohinder

Jugal Kishore v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jugal Kishore v. State of Punjab 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

Sudesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Om Pal Vs State of Pb. and Ors.

Sukhwinder Vs State of Punjab and Others

Bikram Jeet Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Seema Rani Vs Distt & Sessions Judge & Ors.

Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.