Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaipal Singh And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 2 September, 2013
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.14539 of 2009
Date of decision: 02.09.2013
Jaipal Singh and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr.Rajeev Anand, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Advocate,
for UOI
Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana
*****
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. (Oral)
Since no final decision has been taken on the claim made in the writ petition for the grant of benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme dated 9.8.1999 (P-1), it may be inappropriate for this Court to proceed to dwell or opine on the arguments addressed on the merits of the case by both sides.
Indisputably, the petitioners are Constables (General Duty) or Constables (Drivers). They have rendered over 20 years of service without promotion. They have been put in the lower medical category due to certain injuries received while fighting insurgents in Kashmir. This part is not Kumar Paritosh 2013.09.03 15:30 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP No.14539 of 2009 2 disputed but the medical condition of SHAPE-I is being used against them to deprive them of the benefits of the ACP pay scales given in lieu of promotion.
Mr. Anand submits that operation of Sections 33 and 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 have been notified as applicable to Central Reserve Police Force vide office order dated 10.9.2002 (P-6). Petitioners No.1 and 2 have completed 12 years of service prior to 10.9.2002. Rest have completed 12 years of service in 2003 and 2004. Mr. Anand points out from the principles of promotion prescribed in Standing Orders of CRPF from Constables to Head Constables, extracted at page 11 of the paperbook, which do not indicate that promotion can be denied to a person suffering from low medical category. On these premises, Mr. Anand submits that his clients should be given the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme pay scales.
The question which arises for consideration, in this case, is that in case, a substantive vacancy arises today or arose prior to 10.9.2002 or immediately thereafter, could any of the petitioners be promoted by applying the principles laid down in the standing orders. In case, the answer is yes, then, the further question is whether Assured Career Progression Scheme pay scales which is granted in lieu of promotion should be denied to him.
Ms. Ranjana Shahi refers to CRPF standing order No.6 of 1999 which was extant and in operation during the relevant period, according to which, Category Shape-II was mandatory condition for promotion from the post of Constable to Head Constable in CRPF.
In the absence of a final decision by the Administrator, it would Kumar Paritosh 2013.09.03 15:30 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP No.14539 of 2009 3 serve the ends of justice if a direction is issued to the respondents without expressing anything on the merits of the case to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the Standing Orders/ Rules/Assured Career Progression Scheme etc. in the context of the low medical category and having due regard to the principles of promotion which normally should operate in equal measure under the ACP scheme which is a benefit in lieu of promotion to avoid stagnation in service.
Let a final decision be taken within 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioners will be offered an opportunity of oral hearing before the final orders are passed and needless to add, it would be a speaking one dealing with the contentions of the petitioner at the oral hearing together with the pleas taken in this writ petition which may be treated as a supplementary representation to any other representation which may have been filed earlier. After the final decision is taken, the same be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner would be at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court again, in case, any adverse orders are passed against them.
Disposed of with the above directions.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
September 2, 2013 JUDGE
Paritosh Kumar
Kumar Paritosh
2013.09.03 15:30
I agree to specified portions
of this document