Writ petition regarding claim for reward became infructuous as CBI had already granted the reward; petitioner advised to represent to the agency for further claims.
Writ petition declared infructuous; direction to petitioner to submit representation to concerned agency for consideration of claim.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
�����������������������������������������������
CWP No.11830 of 1999 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.09.2012
Surinder Kumar . . . . Petitioner
vs.
UT Chandigarh & Ors.
��������������������������������������
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate for the respondents
���������������������
(1). Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset points out that like Balwinder Singh, the petitioner has also been employed as a Constable in the Punjab Police and he is presently residing in his own house under the security cover provided by the Chandigarh Police. The only issue which still survives is the claim of the petitioner for the grant of ‘reward’ announced by the investigating agency.
(2). Counsel for the UT Chandigarh states that the ‘reward’ was announced by the CBI and as per the averment made in the reply filed by UT Chandigarh Administration, cash reward of Rs.40000/- was indeed granted to the petitioner by CBI.
(3). Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the above-stated subsequent events, I am of the considered view that the writ petition, in a way, has become infructuous. Suffice it to observe that if the petitioner is entitled to any additional amount
������
��������������������
towards reward from the CBI or any other Agency, he may represent to
such agency in this regard.
(4). The representation, if any, to be submitted by the petitioner, shall be considered objectively and sympathetically by the Agency concerned keeping in view the promise/commitment, if any, made by it at the relevant time. Appropriate decision on the representation shall be
taken within a period of four months from the date of its submission.
(5). Ordered accordingly. Dasti .
�����������
!"#$%�"#&'($)
�������������
�*+,-
Surinder Kumar
UT Chandigarh
Unknown Judge
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
