IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 17027 of 2007 Date of Decision : May 18, 2010. Sarjeet Singh s/o S. Karam Singh, R/o Flat No. 401, New Generation Real Estate, Zirakpur, Mohali, Punjab. ...... Petitioner . Versus. Union of India through The Secretary to Government of India, Department of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi, and others ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. R.N. Raina, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. I.S. Saggu, Central Government Counsel, for respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). Written statement to application, i.e., C.M. No. 14682 of 2009 is taken on record. The prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the order dated 03.10.2006 (Annexure-P-7), order dated 27.07.2007 (Annexure-P-17), and order dated 01.08.2007 (Annexure-P-18), passed by respondents, wherein the memorial dated 05.02.2007 submitted by the petitioner, had been rejected on the ground that the same is time barred. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the memorial should have been forwarded to the President of India for due consideration, but the same had not been done in the present case and had been decided at the level of Administrative Ministry, i.e., Home Affairs. He contends that the said memorial should have been forwarded to the President of India for consideration. This contention he raises on the basis of Standing Order 56 of 2001 (Annexure-P-12-A). C.W.P. No. 17027 of 2007. -2- On the other hand, counsel for respondents submits that the ACRs, of which the petitioner is seeking upgradation through the memorial, has already been adjudicated upon in various writ petitions and even the SLP stands dismissed. The details of the litigation qua these very ACRs have been mentioned in preliminary submission No. 1 to the reply filed to the application, i.e., C.M. No. 14682 of 2009. He on this basis contends that the matter having attained finality, the claim of the petitioner on the judicial side cannot be accepted. His further contention is that the ACRs, of which the agitation is being made by the petitioner through memorial submitted to the President of India relate to the period 1992 to 1999. On 05.02.2007, which is hopelessly time barred and, therefore, the memorial had rightly been rejected by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Counsel for the petitioner to this contention responds by stating that the said aspect came to the notice of the petitioner in the year 2005, when circulars dated 16.11.2005 and dated 28.11.2005 (Annexure-P-1 and Annexure-P-2) were issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and accordingly, the petitioner had submitted his memorial dated 05.02.2007. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. It is an admitted position that by now the petitioner has retired as a Commandant on 30.06.2007. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that had his ACRs been upgraded, he would have been entitled to be promoted as Additional D.I.G. As he would have made the benchmark, which would have enabled him to get another three years in service and he would have retired at the age of 60 years. In the light of the judgments passed by the High Courts and Hon’ble the Supreme Court, it would not be open to the petitioner to submit such a contention. However, as is apparent from the records, the C.W.P. No. 17027 of 2007. -3- memorial which had been submitted by the petitioner, is delayed much beyond reasonableness and there is no explanation for the delay except that the Instructions dated 16.11.2005 and 28.11.2005 (Annexure-P-1 and Annexure- P-2) gave him a chance for re-consideration as there were no reasons assigned while degrading his ACRs by the Assessing Officer as none was communicated to him. This contention is not acceptable in the given facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, interference by this Court in the present writ petition is not called for. Counsel for the petitioner states that a Review Application preferred by the petitioner, i.e., R.A. No. 10256 of 2009 in C.W.P. No. 7865 of 2004 is to come up for hearing before the High Court of Delhi on 05.07.2010. He states that passing of this order may not adversely affect the claim made by the petitioner in the said review application. The Order passed by this Court in the present case shall have no bearing on the claim, which has been made by the petitioner in his review application, pending before High Court of Delhi. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 18, 2010. sjks.