IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18229 of 2008 Between: Sri Jashpal ( CRPF Constable / General Duty - Force No. 911130489 ), S/o. Sri Om Prakash, R/o. CRPF Quarters, Group Center, CRPF, Ranga Reddy, Secunderabad - 500 087 (A.P.). ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of India, Minitry of Home Affairs, MHA, Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi - 110001. 2 The Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Lodhi Road, CGO Complex, New Delhi - 110003. 3 The Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Southern Sector, Jubli Hills, Hyderabad ( A.P.) 4 The Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Ranga Reddy Range, Hakimpet Post, Secunderabad - 500 078, A.P. 5 The Commandant 90 Battalion, CRPF, J&K (Jammu & Kashmir ), C/o. 56 APO. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction, more particuarly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order Dated: 16.01.2007 issued by the 5th respondent as arbitrary, unjust and illegal and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.NARINDER PAL SINGH Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following Order: The petitioner is working as a Constable in the C.R.P.F. After conducting departmental enquiry against him, the ﬁfth respondent passed an order, dated 16.01.2007, imposing the punishment of reduction of timescale of pay from Rs.3965/- to Rs.3,200/- to be in force for a period of three years. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the third respondent with a review under Rule 29 of C.R.P.F. Rules, 1955 on 09.01.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that the review has not been disposed of, as yet. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. After exhausting the remedy of appeal, the petitioner had approached the third respondent with a statutory remedy of review on 09.01.2008. Inasmuch as the order, dated 16.01.2007, passed by the ﬁfth respondent had the eﬀect of reduction of pay scale, the matter needs to be attended to, without any further delay. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the third respondent to pass appropriate orders on the review presented by the petitioner, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:22.08.2008 kdl