CWP No.6149 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.6149 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.04.2010 **** Mohan Lal . . . . Petitioner 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. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated 28.07.2009 (Annexure P1), whereby, his claim for retrospective promotion as Inspector w.e.f. 20.07.1995 i.e. from the date when his alleged junior, namely, Balwant Singh – respondent No.3 was promoted, has been turned down on the ground that no junior has been actually promoted. The petitioner on the other hand contends that respondent No.3 is junior to him and he has already got promotion as Inspector. (2). This Court vide order dated March 4, 2010 passed in CWP No.566 of 2010 (Ranjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others) has constituted an Officers’ Committee in order to redress the grievance of the Police personnel. In my considered, the inter-se- CWP No.6149 of 2010.doc - 2 – seniority dispute, if any, raised by the petitioner as well as his claim for promotion to the rank of Inspector can also be effectively dealt with by the said Committee. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the said Officers’ Committee to look into the grievance of the petitioner and take appropriate decision within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Committee, before taking any final decision in the matter, shall hear the petitioner as well as the other police personnel(s) likely to be affected. (3). Ordered accordingly. (4). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 06.04.2010 vishal shonkar