Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 7]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Deputy Superintendent Of Police Baldev ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 25 April, 2013

Author: Surya Kant

Bench: Surya Kant

LPA No. 1533 of 2012                                             -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                                        LPA No. 1533 of 2012

                                        Date of decision: 25.4.2013



Deputy Superintendent of Police Baldev Singh


                                                           ..... Appellant

                     Versus


State of Punjab and others


                                                           ..... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH

PRESENT: Mr. S.N. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.

               Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Addl. A.G. Punjab.


SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 9.8.2012, whereby the appellant's writ petition claiming retrospective promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police from the year 2007, has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay and latches. It has been observed by the learned Single Judge that the appellant is claiming promotion in the category of outstanding sports person from the year 2007 whereas the writ petition was filed in the year 2012. It has been observed and rightly so that ordinarily such like grievances should be raised in the Court within a period of six months to LPA No. 1533 of 2012 -2- one year.

In addition to what has been observed by the learned Single Judge, we find that the appellant had submitted a representation which was duly considered by the State Government and the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Punjab, rejected his claim by passing a self-speaking order firstly on 3.12.2008 and then again on 20.1.2009. The appellant did not challenge these orders before this Court or any other appropriate forum within a reasonable period. It cannot be overlooked that the appellant was working as Inspector/DSP and thus was not a man without means to approach the Court at the earliest.

For the reasons aforestated, we do not fined any ground to take a different view.

Dismissed.



                                                  ( SURYA KANT )
                                                      JUDGE


April 25, 2013                                    ( R.P. NAGRATH )
rishu                                                  JUDGE