Disposed

Prahlad Meena v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Feb 2017CW/10512/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking permission to undergo Promotion Cadre Course and promotion to Assistant Sub Inspector. Interim compliance was noted. Petitioner secured reinstatement due to refusal of prosecution sanction. Court allowed liberty to file representation for relief, directing respondents to decide within one month.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to file representation within two weeks; respondents directed to decide within one month and consider PCC results.

Prahlad Meena Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 10512 / 2016

¶3

Prahlad Meena S/o Sh. Jagan Lal Meena, aged about 44 years, presently working as Head Constable under the office of Dist. Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The Director General of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur.

¶8

Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner.

¶9

The Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Solanki

¶12

For Respondent(s) : None present

¶13

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR

¶14

Judgment / Order

¶15

03/02/2017

¶16

The prayer in the present petition was for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to undergo Promotion Cadre Course commencing from 19.09.2016 and further promote him to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector after undergoing promotion cadre course.

¶17

Vide order dated 15.09.2016, the petitioner was allowed to be sent for PCC commencing on 19.092016 as per the Circular dated 03.04.1984.

¶18

Reply has been filed. As per the reply, the interim order passed by this Court was duly complied with by the answering respondents in its true letter and spirit. Thus, to the said extent,

¶19

(2 of 2)

¶20

[CW-10512/2016]

¶21

the prayer No.1 has become infructuous as stated in the reply itself.

¶22

With respect to the second prayer, it is stated that A.C.B. case No.291 dated 01.07.2013, under Section 7 P.C. Act is pending against him. At the same time, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record Annexure-A/2 dated 4.1.2017 vide which the petitioner has been reinstated as the prosecution sanction has been refused by the competent authority.

¶23

In view of the fresh development, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the appropriate authority for the relief claimed herein. In case, the said representation is filed within two weeks from today, the respondents shall decide the same within one month of the receipt of the said representation. The respondents will also be at liberty to declare the result of the petitioner in pursuance to his PCC in accordance with law.

¶24

(NIRMALJIT KAUR), J.

¶25

praveen

Prahlad Meena v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahlad Meena v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases