CWP No.8644 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.8644 of 2009 Date of Decision: 26.05.2010 **** Balwinder Singh and another . . . . 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. OS Batalvi, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWPs No. 8644 & 8676 of 2009 as common issues are involved in both cases. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.8644 of 2009. (2). The petitioners, who are holding the local ranks of ASIs in the Police Department, Government of Punjab, seek quashing the order dated 30.04.2009 (Annexure P5) passed by the Director General of Police, Punjab, whereby, the local rank of ASI granted to them, has been ordered to be withdrawn. CWP No.8644 of 2009.doc - 2 – (3). Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit. (4). During the course of hearing and having regard to the contentions raised, it is indeed imperative to examine the claim of petitioners in accordance with Rule 13.2(a) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 under which local ranks are conferred. Similarly, the implications and the consequences arising therefrom also need to be examined independently. (5). 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 comprising two Senior Police Officers duly assisted by an Additional Advocate General, Punjab to look into the grievances of the Police personnel, wherein, the parameters within which the said Committee is obligated to perform its duties, have also been laid down. Needless to say that the Committee, uninfluenced of the previous administrative decision(s) even if taken by the superior authority, shall be required to act normatively in a manner as is expected from a quasi-judicial authority. (6). The writ petition(s) is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the Officers’ Committee constituted in Ranjit Singh’s case (supra) to consider the claim of CWP No.8644 of 2009.doc - 3 – the petitioner(s) for the grant of local ranks under Rule 13.2(a) of the Rules ibid read with the standing orders/policies/instructions, if any, issued on the subject. The Officers’ Committee shall take a decision in the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that if the Committee recommends that the petitioner(s) is/are entitled to be granted local rank under the Rules, the competent authority is directed to implement those recommendations forthwith unless it disagrees with the recommendations, the reasons to be assigned in writing. (7). It is further directed that till the Committee takes an appropriate decision, the petitioners shall be allowed to hold the local ranks already granted to them. In case an adverse decision is taken, the same shall not be given effect for a period of one month to enable the petitioner(s) to seek redressal of his/their grievances before an appropriate forum. (8). Ordered accordingly. (9). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 26.05.2010 vishal shonkar