PRABH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of communication dtd. 22/6/2017 whereby his claim for benefit of ACP was declined.

(2.) Learned counsel representing the petitioner claims that petitioner was holding substantive rank of Inspector and was assigned Local Rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in 2013. He retired as DSP (Local Rank). He drew salary of Inspector while holding rank of DSP (Local Rank). The respondent in view of judgment of this Court in CWP No.4829 of 2011 titled as SI Pardeep Singh and Others Versus State of Punjab and Others revised seniority list, however, he was not granted substantive rank of DSP, thus, was entitled to ACP. The respondent has denied him benefit of ACP available on completion of four and nine years' service without promotion. The petitioner remained on the post of Inspector for more than nine years, thus, he was entitled to ACP available on completion of four years and thereafter nine years. The respondent has granted claimed benefit to Kashmir Singh who approached this Court by way of CWP No.17796 of 2018 titled as Kashmir Singh Versus State of Punjab and Others. This Court vide order dtd. 16/2/2023 allowed writ petition of Kashmir Singh and respondent released benefit of ACP to said employee.

(3.) Learned State counsel submits that claim of petitioner would be considered in the light of judgment of this Court in Kashmir Singh (supra) and ACP Rules. An appropriate order in this regard would be passed within four weeks from today.