CWP No. 12086 of 2008 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12086 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.09.2011 Surjit Singh, ASI and others ...Petitioners Versus 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. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Monika Chibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Mr. Ramesh Goyal, Advocate. Mr. Sunil Sharma, Advocate for Ms. Bindu Goel, Advocate. **** SURYA KANT, J.(Oral) The petitioners are working as Assistant Sub Inspectors in the Telecommunication wing of the Punjab Police. They have a usual seniority dispute with the private respondents. Since there were large number of cases pertaining to the police department coming to Courts frequently, learned Advocate General, Punjab was impressed upon to advise the Department to constitute an Officer's Committee to resolve the service disputes of the police personnel's and settle the same wherever possible. The Department agreed to the suggestion, hence in Civil Writ Petition No. CWP No. 12086 of 2008 (O&M) [2] 566 of 2010 (Ranjit Singh and others V. State of Punjab & others) an Officers-Committee was ordered to be constituted and mechanism to be followed by it to resolve the disputes was also briefly laid down. The operative part of the judgment cited supra reads as follow:- “In view of the above stated stand taken by the parties and the issues raised, without going into the merits of the controversies at this stage, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- i) there shall be an Officers-Committee comprising [i] Shri Parag Jain, IPS, IGP/Head Quaerters, Punjab Police; [ii] Smt. Gurpreet Kaur Deo, IPS, DIG Administration, Punjab Police Headquarters; and [iii] Shri M.S.Gill, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, attached with the DGP, Punjab who shall consider the claims of the petitioners and other police personnel who are likely to be affected; ii) the Committee shall hear the petitioners and all other police personnel who are likely to be affected by the recommendations that may be made by it. The Committee, after examining the rival claims in the light of the Act, Rules, Government policy, equitable considerations, fair and just principles, shall submit its recommendations to the Director General of Police, Punjab/State Government, as early as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received; iii) the petitioners and other noticees shall be at liberty to submit additional documents and/or plea[s] as may be required. iv) the Committee shall submit its recommendations duly supported with reasons; v) the recommendations of the Committee shall ordinarily be accepted by the Director General of Police/State Government, as the case may be, unless there are strong and cogent reasons, to be recorded in writing; CWP No. 12086 of 2008 (O&M) [3] vi) if the petitioners are aggrieved at the Committee's report/recommendations, they shall be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law; vii) till the Officers-Committee resolves the issues, the allocation to different cadres, promotions and/or any other incidental service events shall be subject to the Committee's report and the final decision to be taken thereupon by the Competent Authority.” The Officer's Committee is said to have examined the claim of the petitioners and other similarly placed personnel(s) of the Telecommunication Wing and has made certain recommendations. These recommendations have been taken note of by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 8743 of 2011 titled as 'Surinder Pal Singh V. State of Punjab and others', the operative part of the which reads as follow:- “ The petitioner's grievance is that despite the categoric recommendation made by the Officers Committee, as reproduced above, the impugned seniority lists have been issued in total contradiction thereto with a view to favour the private respondents. It is in this backdrop that one of the relief sought by the petitioner is to direct the officials respondents to implement the report of the Officers Committee, re-fix the seniority and thereafter make the consequential promotions. The above stated claim is said to have been raised by the petitioner by submitting the objections against the seniority list which, according to the petitioner, have not been disposed of so far. Be that as it may, it is imperative upon the official respondents to take a categoric view on the report submitted by the Officers Committee and if it has been decided to be accepted in principle, to give effect to the recommendations made by the Officers Committee before making promotions etc. on the basis of the previous or repeated seniority lists. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to CWP No. 12086 of 2008 (O&M) [4] respondent Nos.2 & 3 to take an appropriate decision and if it is found that as a result of acceptance and implementation of the report of the Officers Committee, the seniority lists need altered, the needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that the consequential reversion/promotion, if any, shall also take place accordingly.” It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they would be satisfied if same directions are issued in their case as well. There can indeed be no serious objection from the respondents as their right to raise objections against the recommendations made by the Officer's Committee or the right of the Competent Authority to differ with those recommendations after assigning reasons in writing, have been duly projected in Ranjit Singh's case (supra). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of Surinder Pal Singh's case cited (supra). The needful shall be done within the same time frame. Dasti. 13.09.2011 (SURYA KANT) 'ravinder' JUDGE