Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VISHNU DAYAL versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vishnu Dayal v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-798-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 2325 (6 April 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

C.W.P. No. 798 OF 2006

Date of Decision: 28.4.2006

Vishnu Dayal

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

PRESENT: Mr. Ram Kumar Malik, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana,

for the respondents.

JUDGMENT

M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has been working on the post of Inspector with the respondent State. In the seniority list as it stood on 1.10.2004 (complete uptil 6.7.2005), the name of the petitioner figures at Sr. No. 93, which shows that the date of his enrolment in List `F' is 6.11.1998 and date of promotion as Inspector given is 7.11.1998. It has further been averred by the petitioner in sub-para (iii) of para 8 that persons junior to him in the seniority list from 95 to 102 have already been promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, vide order dated 22.12.2005 (P-5). He has also filed representation claiming his enlistment and promotion on the post of C.W.P. No. 798 of 2006

Sub Inspector with effect from 6.6.1989 and further promotion as Inspector with effect from 7.6.1996 claiming that he would be entitled to seniority at Sr. No. 63 above one Shri Balbir singh, whose name figure in the seniority list at Sr. No. 64. The aforementioned representation is pending consideration of the respondents. However, on 5.4.2006, the respondents have issued a show cause notice to the petitioner (R-1) proposing to change his enlistment on the promotion List `F' and the consequential date of promotion as Inspector with effect from 7.12.1998 instead of 7.11.1998. The aforementioned show cause notice is also pending consideration of the respondents.

Mr. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the entry at Sr. Nos. 101 and 102 of the seniority list, as it stood on 1.10.2004 (complete uptil 6.7.2005) (P-3), in respect of two Inspectors, namely, Sarv Shri Ram Kala and Vijay Kumar. The aforementioned entries shows that both the Inspectors are junior to the petitioner whose name is reflected in the seniority list at Sr. No.

93. The date of promotion as Inspector in respect of both the aforementioned officers, namely, Sarv Shri Ram Kala and Vijay Kumar is 12.1.1999 respectively. According to the learned counsel even if the proposed change is effected in the date of his promotion as Inspector to 7.12.1998, the petitioner would still rank senior to the aforementioned Inspectors Sarv Shri Ram Kala and Vijay Kumar as his date of promotion would continue to be earlier than the aforementioned officers. It is admitted case of the parties that aforementioned Sarv Shri Ram Kala and Vijay Kumar have been considered and promoted on the higher post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on 22.12.2005 as is evident from entry Nos.

20 and 21 of the order dated 22.12.2005 (P-5).

Mr. Rathee, learned counsel for the respondents, however, on the other hand pointed out that the show cause notice is yet to be replied by the petitioner and accordingly change in the seniority position has to be effected. According to the learned counsel, if junior to the petitioner has been considered then his case deserve to be considered for promotion. But that would depend on C.W.P. No. 798 of 2006

the change to be effected after considering the reply to the show cause notice, which may be given by the petitioner.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and without going into merits of the representation made by the petitioner and the show cause notice issued by the respondents (R-1), we are of the view that the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police as persons junior to the petitioner, mentioned at Sr. Nos. 101 and 102 of the seniority list, have been considered and promoted on 22.12.2005.

Accordingly, a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from the date persons junior to him in the seniority list of Inspectors (P-3) have been considered and promoted. However, we do not express any opinion on the representation made by the petitioner with regard to ante-dating of his dates of promotion as Sub Inspector and Inspector and show cause notice issued to him by the respondents (R-1). At this stage we consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to take a decision on the representation as well as the show cause notice within a period of two months from today. However, it shall not be an impediment in considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police which shall be done within two weeks from today.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

(M.M. KUMAR)

JUDGE

(M.M.S. BEDI)

April 28, 2006 JUDGE

Pkapoor


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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