IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1622 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 29, 2010 Inspector Harpal Singh …Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. A.P.S. Shergill, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letter Patent is directed against order dated 17.11.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petition filed by the appellant in terms of directions issued in the case of Sub Inspector Gurbinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (C.M. No. 14155 of 2010 and CWP No. 11993 of 2010, decided on 13.10.2010). 2. The prayer made in the writ petition by the appellant was that direction be issued to the respondents to grant him promotion over and above his juniors, in terms of Seniority List-‘F’, dated 16.9.1990 (P-3) as Deputy Superintendent of Police and thereafter Superintendent of Police from a date L.P.A. No. 1622 of 2010 (O&M) persons junior to him like Sarvshri Amarjit Singh, Naresh Kumar and Harinderjit Singh, who have been given promotion, along with all consequential benefits. A further prayer has been made that the respondents be directed to follow and implement their Savingrams, dated 1.10.2008 (P-1) and 8.10.2010 (P-2), passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively in its true letter and spirit. 3. The appellant was recruited as Assistant Sub-Inspector on 22.1.1982 and was confirmed as such on 22.1.1986. After coming on List-‘E’, he was further promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector on 2.6.1986 and then as Inspector on 15.1.1993 as promotion on account of his excellent performance on Anti Terrorist Front. He was also given promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police (ORP) and was posted as such at Ropar. He worked as such till June 2001 when he was reverted to his substantive rank of Sub- Inspector as per the direction of this Court. On 7.9.1989, an FIR No. 23 under Sections 364, 365, 201 and 120B IPC was registered against him at Police Station, SAS Nagar. Alongwith his name, persons like Inspector Mohinder Singh and Kashmir Singh, SHO Morinda, were also co-accused in the said FIR. During the pendency of the FIR they were promoted to the higher rank. Mohinder Singh was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police and further to the rank of Superintendent of Police, whereas Kashmir Singh was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, vide order dated 10.12.2001. The FIR was decided on 14.1.2006. Another FIR No. 1, dated 10.1.1997, under Section 13 (1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was also registered against the petitioner-appellant at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, FS, Phase-I, Mohali. On a representation filed to the Director General of Police, the petitioner-appellant was ordered to be given promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police, vide Savingram dated 1.10.2008. 2 L.P.A. No. 1622 of 2010 (O&M) 4. The learned Single Judge has referred to the order passed by this Court in Sub-Inspector Gurbinder Singh’s case (supra) where a Committee has been appointed by this Court to look into the seniority disputes of Police Inspectors and other police officers. In view of the reference made to the Committee of many other cases, the learned Single Judge has delegated the case of the petitioner-appellant also to that Committee. 5. Mr. A.P.S. Shergill, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has argued that dispute in the present case is not of same type as involved in the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by this Court in Sub-Inspector Gurbinder Singh’s case (supra). However, it could not be denied that seniority disputes of officers at various ranks are pending and that even the order of Savingram issued by the Director General of Police has not attained finality because it is yet to be accepted by the Home Secretary. Therefore, we are of the view that once the seniority of police officers at various level is in fluid stage, it would not be possible for us to ignore the developing situation. It is much better if all the seniority disputes including the one raised by the petitioner-appellant are solved and the Committee is able to submit its report expeditiously. Accordingly, we do not find any fault with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and relegate the petitioner-appellant to agitate his grievance before the Committee. 6. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE 3 L.P.A. No. 1622 of 2010 (O&M) (RITU BAHRI) November 29, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 4