IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3545 of 2010 Date of Decision : March 02, 2010. Neelam Kumari .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner is widow of late Constable Rattan Singh who unfortunately died while in service. As the family lost their sole bread earner, the petitioner was employed as a Special Police Officer on 29.8.1996. She was thereafter short-listed and selected for recruitment as Lady Constable in the year 2004 but her formal enlistment was statedly kept in abeyance due to the pendency of a criminal case under Section 420 IPC against her in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Batala. The petitioner has already been acquitted in that case vide order dated 1.11.2007. She thereafter represented for her enlistment as a Lady Constable. Her case was duly recommended by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar, vide memo dated 4.7.2008 (Annexure P-2). However, no final decision has been taken by the Director C.W.P.No .3545 of 2010 2 General of Police, Punjab, despite the representation dated 5.1.2009 (Annexure P-3) sent by the petitioner. It is stated that after the aforesaid representation, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala has also recommended the case of the petitioner to employ her as a Lady Constable, vide memo dated 10.4.2009 (Annexure P-4). The facts would speak for themselves that respondent No.2 has unfortunately adopted a totally indifferent attitude. Firstly, the petitioner who lost her husband while on duty, deserved better treatment and ought to have been given appointment on regular basis immediately instead of keeping her on a tenter hook as a Special Police Officer which is not a regular post nor carries any regular pay scale. Secondly, the only incriminating material which came in her way for regular absorption also disappeared in the year 2007, as per-se, there is no tangible reason as to why respondent No.2 did not take some decision soon thereafter. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to take cognizance of the legal notice dated 4.11.2009 (Annexure P-5), served on behalf of the petitioner and take an appropriate decision in the matter within one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. A compliance report shall also be sent to this Court failing which the Registry is directed to list this writ petition alongwith suo-moto contempt proceedings, on 17.5.2010. Disposed of. Dasti. March 02, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE