Om Prakash Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2634 of 2016 Om Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Shanker Lal Sharma, Aged About 34 Years Working As Sub Inspector ( Cyber Crime ), At Cyber Crime Cell, ( Crime Investigation Department ) P H Q Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home & Police, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Director General Of Police, Chhattisgarh P. H. Q. Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. R.K. Kesharwani, Advocate.

For State :

Mr. R.K. Gupta, Dy. A.G. on advance copy Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 05/07/2016 Heard on admission.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to respondents to provide appropriate promotional avenue to officers of the cadre Sub-Inspector (Cyber Crime).

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the police department, post of Sub-Inspector (Cyber Crime) have been created, however, till date, promotional avenue has not been provided to them. He submits that for Sub-Inspectors of other category which includes Sub-Inspector (Male and Female) and Sub-Inspector (Computer), promotional avenue has been provided. Absence of any promotional

avenue for Sub-Inspector (Cyber Crime) is discriminating apart from being exploitative in nature.

3.

On petitioner's own showing, the Police Head Quarter vide its memo dated 30.05.2016 has already sent a proposal to include the post of Sub-Inspector (Cyber Crime) also in the fourth Schedule of the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2006. The proposed amendment includes the post of SubInspector (Cyber Crime) also for the purposes of providing promotional avenue to the next higher post of Inspector (Computer). This shows that the matter with regard to providing promotional avenue to cadre of Sub-Inspector (Cyber Crime) is under active consideration of the State. Therefore, at this stage, no directions are required to be issued by this Court. In case, the proposed amendment is not accepted and the petitioner does not get any promotional avenue, the petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedy as may be available to him under the law. 4.

The petition is accordingly disposed off.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) J U D G E Rekha