Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Constable No. 36 Suresh Chandra Yadav And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 29773 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20308 (30 November 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon. V.C. Misra, J.

Sri Tej Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents are present.

On the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being heard and disposed off finally at the admission stage itself in terms of the provisions of Chapter XXII Rule 2 of the Rules of Court, 1952.

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a direction commanding respondents to grant out of turn promotion to the petitioners in the light of Government Order No. 665 (1) Cha-Pu-1-24/93 dated 3.2.1994.

The grievance of the petitioners is that though in the light of Government order dated 3.2.1994 out of turn promotion was granted by Senior Supdt. of Police, Etawah vide order-dated 24.2.2006 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) to Sub Inspector-Shri Ram Nath Singh Yadav who was one of the members of that police party to which the petitioners were also members for having shot a dreaded criminal Braj Kishore Pathak @ Karorhi @ Vidhayak in an encounter on 1.3.2005 showing courage and valour, but the petitioners were not granted such out of turn promotion.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said Sub Inspector has been singled out for being given benefit of out of turn promotion but other members of the said police patrol party were not granted similar award whereas in the first information report lodged by Sri Ram Nath Singh Yadav, Sub Inspector, it has been mentioned that the entire police party showed exemplary courage and bravery during the entire encounter. However, learned counsel for the petitioners in the presence of learned Standing Counsel has prayed that this writ petition may be disposed of by directing respondent no. 2 to consider the representation of the petitioners in the light of the averments made in the first information report lodged in connection with the said encounter.

Under the above said facts and circumstances of the instant case and in view of the aforesaid submissions being made, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction that in case the petitioners make a representation to the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow- respondent no. 2 alongwith copy of the writ petition and all its annexures within a period of one month from the date of obtaining a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and disposed of after affording full opportunity of hearing to them by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of filing of such representation.

No order is passed as to costs.

30.11. 2006

kdo (29773/06)


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.