IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 2965 of 2010 Date of Decision: 19.2.2010. Lekh Ram --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. A.K. Bura, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents-State. Keeping in view the nature of relief claimed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself. The petitioner was appointed as constable on 30.9.1989. He was later appointed in Executive Clerical Cadre (English Branch) on 20.4.1993 and thereafter he was promoted as Head Constable w.e.f. 30.9.2002 with special pay of Rs. 40/- which was enhanced to Rs. 60/- w.e.f. 3.8.2007. The petitioner and one Sh. Rajinder Singh sought mutual transfer on account of their family circumstances. The competent authority accepted their request and the petitioner was transferred from Bhiwani district to Narnaul district, whereas Sh. Rajinder Singh was transferred to Bhiwani district. Similarly, a number of mutual transfers were allowed by the competent authority. A seniority list of Head Constables was issued by the Inspector General of Police vide order dated 10.10.2005. In the CWP. No. 2965 of 2010 -2- aforesaid seniority list the petitioner figured at Sr. No. 42, whereas Ravinder Singh figured at Sr. No. 47. Ravinder Singh has been promoted as ASI, whereas the petitioner is still a Head Constable. Petitioner made a representation against his non-promotion. On the aforesaid representation the Inspector General of Police, Faridabad Range recommended his claim vide D.O. Letter dated 1.8.2009 to the Director General of Police. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite his representation and recommendation, the competent authority has not considered the case of the petitioner for promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, if, respondents are directed to take decision on the representation of the petitioner on the basis of the recommendation made by the Inspector General of Police. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2 to take decision on the representation of the petitioner in the light of the recommendation made by the Inspector General of Police within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the said respondent. Needless to say that in the event the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, the same shall be by a reasoned and speaking order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 19.2.2010. lucky