COCP No.1826 of 2008.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** COCP No.1826 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.01.2010 **** Sadhu Singh and another . . . . Petitioners VS. B.C. Gupta and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This contempt petition has been ordered to be heard with Civil Writ Petition No.1292 of 2009, which is listed today. (2). The petitioners, who have retired from the rank of Inspector from the Punjab Police, have initiated these contempt proceedings, inter alia, alleging that the respondents have made willful and deliberate violation of their undertaking given before this Court on 23.04.2008 in CWP No.19415 of 2006. The said CWP was disposed of in terms of the order dated 20.02.2008 passed by this Court in CWP No.2153 of 2008, (Krishan Kumar and others vs. State of Punjab and COCP No.1826 of 2008.doc - 2 – others). In Krishan Kumar’s case (supra), the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the State has placed on record a Photostat copy of a noting in which it has been mentioned that in CWP No.2153 of 2008 which has been filed by Inspector Krishan Kumar and 37 others for quashing of the orders of deemed date of confirmation, deemed date of promotion as ASI, deemed date of promotion as SIs and promotion as inspector of 354 private respondents, the seniority of all the police officials in all ranks is being recasted, for this purpose, a Committee has already been constituted. The matter is under active consideration. It is further requested in the noting that the Hon’ble High Court may be requested to grant at least 6 months to file reply. Learned counsel for the State has stated at bar that without finalizing the seniority list, no promotions shall be made. Learned counsel for the petitioner is satisfied with the noting and the statement made by the counsel for the State, but states that he be given liberty to file a fresh writ petition to challenge the new seniority list and order of promotion already made (Annexure P12).” (3). The petitioner’s grievance is that despite the statement made at the bar that no promotion shall be made, the respondents have promoted some of the Inspectors to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. (4). I have heard learned counsel for the parties in this regard and also perused the records. COCP No.1826 of 2008.doc - 3 – (5). There is indeed no dispute that the Inspectors in relation to whom the promotion orders have been issued during the currency of the undertaking period were actually considered for promotion on 3rd October, 2006 and 5th July, 2007 but their cases were kept in sealed cover due to pendency of some departmental enquiry and adverse records. As soon as the departmental proceedings were dropped or their representation against adverse comments were accepted, the respondents were obligated to open the sealed cover and restore the status quo ante as it existed on 3rd October, 2006 and prior thereto when their juniors were promoted. These events took place much before the undertaking was given before this Court on 28th July, 2008. (6). Besides this, it is not in dispute that in terms of the undertaking given before this Court, the respondents have already finalized the seniority list. (7). The contempt petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioners that if they are aggrieved at the finalization of the seniority list, they may impugn the same before an appropriate forum. (8). Rules discharged. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 29.01.2010 vishal shonkar COCP No.1826 of 2008.doc - 4 –