SITARAM PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction commanding upon the respondents to give him time bound promotion and the benefit of ACP. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his petition has referred to and relied upon Annexure -5 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner i.e. the District Force Order No. 1387/2005, issued by the Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, wherein it is stated that upon consideration of service record mentioned in the service book, confidential report and other relevant papers/documents, the Screening Committee headed by Director General of Police decided to give the benefit of ACP from the date mentioned against the name of officers in the said order.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has made representation vide Annexure -6; however, till date the respondent -authorities have not given the benefit of ACP to the petitioner.

(3.) CONSIDERING the aforesaid rival submissions and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and more particularly in view of Annexure -5 i.e. the District Force Order No. 1387/2005, it appears that the Screening Committee, headed by Director General of Police has also taken a decision on the basis of service record and thereby decided to give the benefit of ACP to the petitioner w.e.f. 9.8.1999; however, till date no such effect has been given by the respondents. It appears that vide Annexure -6, petitioner has also made representation to the authorities concerned but the benefit, as prayed for, has not been extended to the petitioner. Under the circumstances, respondent -authorities are required to be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in pursuance of the District Force Order No. 1387/2005 (Annexure -5) and take a final decision.