CWP No.7882 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.7882 of 2009 Date of Decision: 03.05.2010 **** Lakhwinder Singh . . . . 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. R.R. Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWPs No.7882 & 12674 of 2009 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. The petitioners in both cases are serving in the Police Department as Assistant Sub Inspectors. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.7882 of 2009. (2). One of the grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the ‘review-representation’ for the grant of due promotion, has been rejected by the then DGP Punjab without assigning any reason. The CWP No.7882 of 2009.doc - 2 – petitioner’s contention is substantiated by the fact that the impugned order dated 13.03.2008 (Annexure P10) simply says that the petitioner’s appeal has been considered and filed. (3). Though in the reply-affidavit the respondents have defended the impugned order, in my considered view, once the petitioner’s appeal was entertained on merits, it was imperative upon by the competent authority to disclose those reasons which weighed with rejection of the claim. (4). The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in part; the impugned order dated 13.03.2008 (Annexure P10) is quashed and the matter(s) is relegated to the Officer’s Committee constituted by this Court in CWP No.566 of 2010 titled as Ranjit Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and others. The Committee shall consider the petitioner’s claim afresh in accordance with Rules/Instructions/Policies and take appropriate decision, preferably after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner(s), within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (5). Ordered accordingly. CWP No.7882 of 2009.doc - 3 – (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 03.05.2010 vishal shonkar