C.O.C.P.No.1832 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P.No.1832 of 2008 Date of Decision : August 05, 2009 Ram Niwas ...Petitioner Versus Sibash Kabiraj, IPS ...Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Ram Niwas-petitioner in person. Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Addl. AG, Haryana. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has filed the present contempt petition praying for implementation of order dated 8.11.2002 passed by the Superintendent of Police in pursuance of which this Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner on 14.11.2002. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Constable as Teleprinter Operator on 13.9.1973. However, he has been given deemed date of appointment on 8.10.1977 i.e. the date when his immediate junior Raj Kumar was promoted. The petitioner has filed earlier writ petitions claiming right to undergo Intermediate School course for confirmation as Head Constable before his immediate junior was appointed as per seniority and few others. On 7.11.2002 an order was passed by Superintendent of Police, Ambala communicated on 8.11.2002 granting deemed date of confirmation in the rank of Head Constable (Teleprinter Operator) w.e.f. 8.10.1977 i.e. the date when his junior was appointed as Head Constable. C.O.C.P.No.1832 of 2008 2 The said order was produced in a writ petition No.3511 of 2002 filed by the petitioner on 14.11.2002. On the basis of the said order, the writ petition was found to have become infructuous. On 18.9.2006, the order passed by the Superintendent of Police on 7.11.2002 was modified, which led to filing of CWP No.18584 of 2006 as also COCP No.1088 of 2006. The said contempt petition was decided on 15.5.2007, after returning a finding that use of words 'now ASI' in the order dated 8.11.2002 will not confer any right of promotion to the post of ASI. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming that his junior Raj Kumar has been promoted as ASI, therefore, he is to be promoted as ASI as well from the date his immediate junior was promoted. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the claim of the petitioner is of parity with Raj Kumar. The said claim is not tenable for the reason that the Cadre of the petitioner i.e. Teleprinter Operator was merged with Tele-Communication Cadre on 20.2.1984. The petitioner has filed a CWP No.561 of 1985, whereby the challenge was made to the merger of the said Cadre. During the course of hearing of the said writ petition before this Court, the learned State Counsel has made a statement that the petitioner is not being reverted, which was ordered vide order dated 28.1.1985. The Deputy Inspector General of Police informed the Director General of Police, Haryana, vide order Annexure R-3 dated 22.5.1985 that the revised option of the petitioner to remain in Tele-printer Operators Cadre has been considered and accepted. The petitioner was brought under administrative control of the C.O.C.P.No.1832 of 2008 3 Superintendent of Police, Wireless, Haryana and the order of reversion of the petitioner to the rank of Constable issued on 20.9.1984 was cancelled. Subsequent to the aforesaid communication, the Superintendent of Police, Wireless, Haryana, has passed an order on 13.6.1985 (Annexure R-2) absorving the petitioner in the Tele-communication Cadre. From the said date, the petitioner is working in the Tele- communication Cadre. It is pointed out that the petitioner is entitlted to claim promotion from the date his junior was promoted in the Executive Cadre till such time he was born on the said cadre i.e. upto 20.2.1984 and not after his allocation to Tele-communication Cadre. It is pointed out that Raj Kumar has remained in the Executive Cadre and was promoted as ASI on 19.5.1984. The petitioner filed certain documents alongwith C.M.No.15681-CII of 2009. The said documents were taken on record. In reply to the said application, the service particulars of Raj Kumar have been given. In reply to the application for filing of additional documents, it has been pointed out that Raj Kumar was appointed on 8.10.1973; promoted as Head Constable on 8.10.1977; and confirmed on 8.10.1979. He has been promoted as ASI on 19.5.1984 and confirmed on 31.1.1990. After hearing the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent, I find that the petitioner was allocated Tele-communication Cadre vide order dated 13.6.1985 w.e.f. 1.6.1985. The said order reads as under : " ORDER As a result of merger of T.P.operators into C.O.C.P.No.1832 of 2008 4 Telecommunication Cadre and transfer of 69 posts of H.C.s teleprinter operators and 15 posts of Constable/messengers from various distt. in Haryana State to this section, the following H.C.s/Consts. who have opted for absorption themselves into this section are hereby brought on the cadre list of this section with effect from 1.6.1985 on permanent basis. 2. On absorption into the Wireless Section with effect from 1.6.1985, he is allotted constabulary No. shown against his name. S.No. Name, Rank & No. Of the Distt. New No. Allotted in this section 1. H.C.Ram Niwas 15/GGN 966/C New 303/GGN Issue orders in O.B. Sd/- Superintendent of Police, Wireless, Haryana, Chandigarh. No.9192-9201 dated Chandigarh, the 13.6.1985 " Thus, the petitioner has to be deemed to be in Executive Cadre till 31.5.1985. If his junior has been promoted in the Executive Cadre before that date, the petitioner is to be considered for promotion with reference to the date of promotion of his junior, provided the petitioner is otherwise fulfulls the conditions of promotion. The order dated 7.11.2002 communicated on 8.11.2002 describes petitioner as Head Constable Ram Niwas, 966/C (now ASI), which was modified on 18.9.2006 omitting the words 'now ASI'. It appears that the Superintendent of Police has not examined the claim of the petitioner for promotion to ASI, keeping in view the fact that the C.O.C.P.No.1832 of 2008 5 petitioner has to be treated a member of the Executive Cadre till 31.5.1985 and before that date his junior Raj Kumar has been promoted as ASI on 19.5.1984. In view of the said fact, the present contempt petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent to purge the contempt by giving benefit of promotion to the petitioner as ASI from the date his junior in the Executive Wing was given promotion on 19.5.1984, provided the petitioner fulfills the other conditions of eligibility. The needful be done within two months. With the said direction, the contempt petition is disposed of. August 05, 2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE