C.W.P No. 1510 of 2009 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 1510 of 2009 Date of decision : January 30, 2009 ASI Narsi Dass and others ...... Petitioner (s) v. The State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. H.P.S. Aulakh, Advocate for the petitioners. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to promote the petitioners under `Own Rank and Pay' policy on the ground of conspicuous and commendable act of bravery. The plea taken is that on 3.10.2007, the petitioners were part of a raiding party who nabbed one notorious criminal Kulvir Singh and his four accomplices but that the benefit of `ORP' was given only to respondents No.3 to 5. The petitioners ultimately filed CWP No.15342 of 2008 which was decided on 19.9.2008 with a direction to the respondent- Director General of Police to decide the representation of the petitioners in C.W.P No. 1510 of 2009 ::2:: view of the policy, Annexure P-7. Consequently, the representation of the petitioners was considered and rejected by order dated 29.11.2008 (Annexure P-1). A perusal of the order, Annexure P-1, reveals that respondent No.1 has discussed the entire case of the petitioners. The order also records reasons why the action of respondents No.3 to 5 was held commendable. In my opinion, it would not be appropriate for this Court to sit in appeal over the decision of respondent No.1. The only factor on which this Court has to be satisfied is as to whether the case of the petitioners has been considered fairly and dispassionately. No allegations have been levelled against respondent No.1. The only argument is that as per policy, Annexure P-7, the case had to be considered by a Committee while in the present case, the Director General of Police has considered the same. It is to be noticed that in the earlier CWP No.15342 of 2008, the direction of this Court was to the Director General of Police-respondent No.1 to decide the case of the petitioners. Even otherwise, the Committee, envisaged under the policy, is a recommendatory body but the competent authority remains the Director General of Police. As noticed above, in the present case the Director General of Police has himself considered the matter and, therefore, no infirmity can be found in this process. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with, however, no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 30, 2009. JUDGE `kk' C.W.P No. 1510 of 2009 ::3::