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 5]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Radhey Shyam Chaudhary & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 December, 2020

Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Asha Menon

$~VC-11
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       W.P. (C) 10864/2020
        RADHEY SHYAM CHAUDHARY & ORS.             .....Petitioners
                         Through: Mr. Manoj V. George, Ms. Shilpa
                                  Liza George and Ms. Bhavika,
                                  Advocates
                   versus

        UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                          .....Respondents
                     Through:         Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
                                      (CGSC), Ms. Kinjal Shrivastava,
                                      Mr. Varun Kishore and Mr. Rishi
                                      Raj Meena, Advocates for UOI

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

                       OR D E R
%                      22.12.2020

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

1.      The ten Head Constables (Radio Operators) of the respondent no. 2
Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) have filed this petition impugning
Clause 11.2 (4) of the Standing Order of CRPF and seeking mandamus to
the respondent CRPF to maintain a common Gradation List for the rank
of Head Constables/ASI/Sub-Inspectors in all trades of the Executive
cadre i.e. Signal, Armourer, Driver, Fitter, etc., to enable all similarly
placed personnel to be treated at par and equally for the purposes of
promotion. Alternatively, mandamus is sought, directing the respondents
to treat the petitioners at par with similarly placed personnel in the




W.P. (C) 10864/2020                                              Page 1 of 2
 Telecommunication cadre of ITBP/SSB.
2.      The counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice,
contends that the policy which is being challenged, is of as far back as in
1976.
3.      However a challenge to the policy can be made, not in vacuum,
and only when aggrieved and if the cause of action to the petitioners is
has arisen within reasonable time preceding the petition, the petition
cannot be rejected at the outset on the ground of being barred by delay,
laches and acquiescence.
4.      Issue notice.
5.      Notice is accepted by the counsel for the respondents.
6.      Counter affidavit be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder, if any
thereto be filed within further four weeks thereafter.
7.      List on 6th May, 2021.




                                           RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

ASHA MENON, J. DECEMBER 22, 2020/ak W.P. (C) 10864/2020 Page 2 of 2