CWP No. 15210 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 15210 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: August 25, 2010 Surinder Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to join either as Special Police officer (SPO) in Punjab Police or in Home Guards. 2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner, serving as SPO, was discharged from service w.e.f. 03.04.1998 by SSP Tarn Taran. The petitioner approached this Court and relief was granted to the petitioner by way of directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and giving back wages w.e.f. 21.09.2001. Learned counsel contends that the order was implemented as is evident from order dated 24.09.2004 Annexure P-1. 3. Vide order Annexure P-2 issued on 05.10.2005, the petitioner was sent to District Home Guards. Order Annexure P-2 reads as under:- “It has been reported at 4.30 PM (Evening) that CWP No. 15210 of 2010 2 in pursuance to the order No. T.M. 209-88-21023/FT dated 22.9.05 and order No.7000/OASI dated 29.9.05, SPO Surinder Singh No.52/Tarn Taran who is presently posted in Khalra has been sent to District Home Guards. The orders have been complied with.” 4. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has not been allowed to join District Home Guards and, therefore, an order passed by this Court is being circumvented. Neither the petitioner is being allowed to serve as SPO nor in Home Guards. 5. The order Annexure P-2 was issued in September 2005 whereas the present petition has been filed in 2010. The petitioner has not placed any document on record to show that the petitioner approached the District Home Guards authorities to join, in close proximity of time, after passing order Annexure P-2, however, the petitoner was not allowed to join. 6. Learned counsel contends that let the petition be dismissed as withdrawn as the petitioner would like to persuade the authorities to allow him to join. 7. Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. 25.08.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?