High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/10281/1999dismissed

Baldev Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab

2017-02-09Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10281 of 1999 Date of decision: 09.02.2017 Constable Baldev Singh and others

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:

Mr.C.S. Jattana, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. L.S. Virk, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

**** JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (ORAL) The petitioners herein have filed the instant writ petition seeking the benefit as given in CWP No. 7823 of 1997 titled Kuldeep Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 23.12.1997. The petitioners contend that they were appointed as SPO by respondent No.4 i.e. S.S.P., Ferozepur. They were promoted as Constables and sent in Intelligence Reserve Battalion (I.R.B.) of Police Department at Ladda Kothi. Since persons junior to them had been promoted and given seniority and increments, the petitioners filed a representation for consideration of their seniority and increments from the date, their juniors had been given the same. The said representation was not decided and aggrieved against the inaction of the State in deciding the representation, the instant writ petition has been filed.

Reply has been filed, wherein a categoric stand has been taken that the claim of the petitioners for granting them promotion from the dates Satyawan 2017.02.16 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

CWP No. 10281 of 1999 -2juniors were promoted, has been considered by the respondents/appellants, but no SPO junior to them has been allotted Constabulary number in Ferozepur District. Their suitability has been adjudged in the year 1997 along with other SPOs in compliance with the judgment dated 12.12.1996 rendered in CWP No. 7451 of 1996. In the reply, it is also submitted that the allegation raised that juniors have been given seniority is also denied by giving details as to how respondent Nos. 5 to 7 were recruited directly in Mansa District.

In view of the reply that has been filed, which is not controverted, nothing survives in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.

09.02.2017 (JAISHREE THAKUR) Satyawan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes.

Whether reportable No.

Satyawan 2017.02.16 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh