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


Pammi Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secy. & Others - WRIT - A No. 12680 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 4066 (9 March 2007)


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'ble Vineet Saran, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.

The petitioner is a Head Constable in the civil police. In terms of Government Order dated 3.2.1994 the petitioner claims that he is entitled to out-of-turn promotion regarding which recommendation has already been made by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut on 20.4.2005 and the matter is pending before the Committee constituted by the said Government Order, of which the Additional Director General of Police (Establishment), U.P., Respondent no.3, is the Chairman. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that although more than one year has passed but no decision has yet been taken by the Committee.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circustances of this case, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the recommendations of the district police officials for grant of out-of-turn promotion to the petitioner be considered and appropriate decision be taken by the Committee constituted under the Government Order dted 3.2.1994 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before the Respondent no.3. After the decision is taken by the said Committee, the Director General of Police U.P. Lucknow, Respondent no.2, shall take appropriate follow up action in the matter.

With the aforesaid observation/direction this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost.

dt.  9.3.2007


w.p. 12680.07


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.