CWP No.7060 of 2008.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.7060 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.03.2010 **** HC Parshotam Ram and others . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab 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. K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioners are working as Head Constables in the Punjab Police. They seek quashing of the order dated 17.12.2007 (Annexure P4), whereby, their deemed dates of promotions, earlier given to them vide order dated 04.11.2004 (Annexure P3), have been withdrawn without any show cause notice and recovery is sought to be effected from them. (2). Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counter- reply/affidavit. During the course of hearing it is made out that the issues raised by the petitioners with regard to availability of vacancies and consequential CWP No.7060 of 2008.doc - 2 – assignments of due date of promotions deserve to be ascertained by the authorities after verifying the record. (3). This court vide order dated 04.03.2010 passed in CWP No.566 of 2010 titled as Ranjit Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others has constituted an Officers’ Committee to redress the grievances of the police personnel. The issues raised by the petitioners can also be effectively gone into by the said Committee. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by relegating the matter to the Committee constituted in Ranjit Singh’s case (supra) who shall hear the petitioners and other affected parties in representative capacity and take an appropriate decision within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (4). So far as the recovery is concerned, the order to that effect cannot sustain in view of the parameters laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Otsers, 2009(3) PLR 511. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners ever misrepresented the facts or adopted deceptive means to secure any monetary gains. Recovery, if any, already effected shall be refunded to the petitioners within the aforesaid period. CWP No.7060 of 2008.doc - 3 – (5). Ordered accordingly. (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 30.03.2010 vishal shonkar