Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Si Satbir Singh S/O Shri Mohar Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi Through on 19 March, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No. 625/2007 New Delhi, this the 19th day of March, 2009 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE MR. L.K.JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A) SI Satbir Singh S/o Shri Mohar Singh, P.I.S. No.28760560, R/o H.No. RZH-130A, Raj Nagar II, Gali No. 6, Palam Colony, New Delhi-110045 Applicant (By Advocate: Shri U. Srivastava) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT Delhi through The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi 2. The Commissioner of Police, Police Head Quarters, I.P. Estate (I.T.O.), New Delhi 3. The Joint Commissioner of Police, Police Head Quarters, I.P. Estate (I.T.O.), New Delhi Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra) ORDER
Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman(A) Challenge in this OA is to an order dated 17.05.2004 of the Commissioner of Police, the second Respondent herein, granting out-of-turn ad hoc promotion to the Applicant under Rule 19 (ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980 with immediate effect. The order dated 17.05.2004, inter alia, states that the Applicant will have no claim for seniority etc. and would be liable for reversion at any time without assigning any reason. The order is challenged on the ground that the Applicant should have been given out-of-turn promotion from the year 1998. The Applicant is further aggrieved that he had filed an appeal against the order dated 17.05.2004, which had not been decided till the time of his approaching the Tribunal. Inter alia, the following relief has been sought:
8.(b) To quash and setting aside the orders issued by the respondents vide its dt. 17.05.04 to the extent debarring the applicant for claiming the seniority etc. as well as granting the promotion to the next higher rank of SI (Exe.) with immediate effect on out of turn basis under rule 19 (ii) of Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) rules 1980 whereas admittedly the said promotion has been granted to the applicant on the basis of earning two Asadharan Karya Puraskar in a calendar year pertaining to the year 1998 as well as the inactions of the respondents by which the respondents have not been considering, finalizing and deciding the appeal of the applicant which is still pending submitted by the applicant against the order dt. 25.05.04 whereas the other similarly situated persons of the applicant who have been granted the promotion, extended the similar benefits from the year of the incident.
(c) Directing the respondent to grant the out of turn promotion to the applicant from the year 1998 in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject with all other consequential benefits namely seniority, arrears of pay differences etc. etc.
2. Briefly, the facts necessary for adjudication of this case are that the Applicant, an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police at the relevant time, had been awarded Asadharan Karya Puraskar on 19.03.1998 for his commendable work in the investigation of cases of blasts, which had occurred in Delhi in 1997. He was awarded Asadharan Karya Puraskar again on 14.03.2000 for another commendable work of tracing the whereabouts of a militant in 1998. The Applicant made a representation to the competent authority for considering his case for out-of-turn promotion for getting two Asadharan Karya Puraskars for the excellent work done in one calendar year, as per the provisions of Circular dated 11.11.1996 of the Delhi Police. Since this circular had been repealed by a subsequent circular dated 12.03.1999, the Respondents rejected his application for consideration for out-of-turn promotion by their order dated 30.01.2003. The Applicant approached this Tribunal in OA No.1746/2003, challenging the order dated 30.01.2003 of the respondents by which his claim for grant of out-of-turn promotion had been rejected. The Tribunal in its order dated 2.01.2004 in the aforesaid OA allowed the application by observing thus:
11. The award is given for the extraordinary work done in a particular year and if it is done on two occasions in one year, he is entitled to be considered for an out of turn promotion. Obviously it is not dependent on the date of the decision when the reference is made. If, for any reason or administrative exigency, there is a delay it has not be counted against the interest of the applicant. This order relied on this Tribunals order in OA No.50/2002, Surinder Singh Vs Union of India & Ors., which was also on the same grounds, in which the Tribunal had held as follows:
2. The applicant is working as Constable in Delhi Police and he has performed two extraordinary works. In one year, he has arrested a notorious criminal/terrorist Raj Kumar in case FIR No.545/98 under Section 24/54/59 Arms Act and under Section 3/4/5 Explosives Act, P.S. Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, wherein the said terrorist had planned to eliminate Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal (son of Shri Prakash Singh Badal) Member of Parliament. For this meritorious work, he was awarded Asadharan Karya Puraskar (Extraordinary work Award). The applicant did another extraordinary work in the year 1998 within a span of about three months. This time also, he arrested a notorious criminal Shri Bhagwan involved in a number of heinous crimes of kidnapping etc. The applicants extraordinary efforts with Const. Ram Avtar led to arrest of the said notorious criminal on 7.4.1998 in case FIR No.84/98 under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act, P.S. Anand Vihar, Delhi as a result of which on 17.3.1999, he was given another Asadharan Karya Puraskar (Extraordinary Work Award). The case of this award was required to be considered by the DPC held in the year 1998, but the same was considered in the year 1999 only though for all practical purposes, this award was given on 17.3.1999 relating to the work done by the applicant in the year 1988. Since the award was given in the year 1999, the applicant could not be considered by the DPC for out of turn promotion in the year 1998.
3. In the circumstances, we feel that ends of justice will be duly met if we direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant taking into consideration the fact that he was awarded in the year 1999 for the act which he had actually done in the year 1998. Accordingly the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicant for one rank promotion from the year 1998, treating this O.A. as part of the applicants representation and take a decision by passing a speaking and a reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. O.A. stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms at the admission stage. Complying with the directions issued in OA 1746/2003, the second respondent promoted the applicant by order dated 17.05.2004, which has been impugned in this OA.
3. The case of the applicant is that as per the directions of the Tribunal in OA No.1746/2003 and also the law laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Surinder Singh (supra), he should have been granted out-of-turn promotion from 1998 and not from the year 2004. The learned counsel for the Applicant would state, as also stated in paragraph 4.8 of the OA, that the Applicant submitted an application to the Respondents for consideration of his promotion from the year 1998, which was followed by a number of reminders but it did not produce any result.
4. The Applicant had been directed by this Tribunal on 26.05.2008 to file an additional affidavit giving details of the representations made by the Applicant from time to time, as claimed by him in paragraph 4.8 of the OA. The Applicant filed an affidavit on 18.07.2008 stating thus:
4. That it is therefore respectfully submitted that in compliance of the directions issued by their lordships in O.A. No.1746/03 decided on 02.01.04 the applicant was granted the out of turn promotion vide respondents order dt. 17.05.04 but from immediate effect instead of the year 1998 contrary to the directions issued by their lordships and being aggrieved by the out of turn promotion w.e.f. 17.05.04 instead of the year 1998 the applicant submitted an application to the concerned officials in the head quarter namely S.I. Raj Singh as well as the others also who have been dealing with the cases pertaining to the out of turn promotion immediately in the year 2004 only but unfortunately the copy of the representation is not available with the applicant.
5. The Respondents, on the other hand, have stated that the Applicant gave a representation to the second Respondent on 3.04.2007, requesting for the grant of out-of-turn promotion from the year 1998 instead of 2004. It is stated that without waiting for the outcome/decision of the representation, the Applicant filed the present OA before this Tribunal on 2.04.2007. It is stated that the representation was considered by the Commissioner of Police and rejected by order dated 13.06.2007. The aforesaid order is placed at Annex R-1 and it reads thus:
Subject:- Representation of SI (Exe.) Satbir Singh, No.4328/D for antedating out of turn promotion.
.
Reference representation submitted by SI (Exe.) Satbir Singh, No.4328/D addressed to C.P. Delhi received vide Dy. No.3698/CP dated 3.4.2007, on the subject cited above.
SI (Exe.) Satbir Singh, No.4328/D has requested that he should be given out of turn promotion in the rank of SI from the year-1998 instead of 2004.
The applicant filed O.A. No. 1746/2003 in the Honble CAT for the grant of out of turn promotion in the rank of SI for receiving two Asadharan Karya Puraskars for the excellent work done in 1998. The Honble CAT vide order dated 2.1.2004 directed the respondents that the claim of the applicant should be considered in the light of the finding recorded in the order.
In pursuance of the directions of the Honble CAT, the case of the applicant was re-considered and he was promoted to the rank of SI (Exe.) on out of turn basis vide order No. 30009-110/CB-IV/PHQ dated 17.5.2004. Now the applicant after a lapse of near about three years from the date of order is claiming that he may be granted out of turn promotion from the year-1998 instead of 17.5.2004 whereas in the order of the Honble CAT there was no clear direction to grant out of turn promotion to the applicant from retrospective effect. As such the claim of the applicant does not stand on merit. Hence his representation has been rejected.
He may be informed accordingly.
Sd/-
(RANVIR SINGH)DCP/ESTT.
FOR COMMISSIONER OF POLICE: DELHI
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments of counsel for both parties and perused the record placed before us. We have also perused the files of OA No.1746/2003, Shri Satbir Singh Vs. Union of India and others as well as OA No.50/2002, Surinder Singh Vs. Union of India and others.
7. The order dated 2.01.2004 in OA No.1746/2003 has relied on the order in Surinder Singh (supra) in which, in identical circumstances, Surinder Singh was granted out-of-turn promotion in 1999, instead of from 1998. It has been noted by the Tribunal that the decision in Satbir Singhs case is indeed identical with the facts in Surinder Singhs case (supra). Paragraph 10 of the order in OA No.1746/2003 (Satbir Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police) reads thus:
10. Identical indeed is the position herein. The Asadharan Karya Puraskars pertain to the extraordinary works done in one year i.e. in the year 1998. If for certain reasons, the award has been delayed that will not take away the right of the applicant for an out of turn promotion.
8. There is no room for doubt in view of the directions in OA 1746/2003 that the Tribunal intended that the benefit of out-of-turn promotion should be granted to the Applicant from 1998. The second Respondent has not read the order of this Tribunal correctly and has wrongly stated that there was no clear direction by the Tribunal to grant out-of-turn promotion to the Applicant from retrospective effect.
9. The other contentions of the Respondents in an additional counter affidavit is that the grant of promotion, either on regular or on ad hoc basis cannot be retrospective, cannot be accepted. The order dated 2.01.2004 in OA No.1746/2003 has not been challenged by the Respondents and has become final. The same principle has been enunciated in Surinder Singhs case (supra) in the order dated 8.01.2002, which has also not been challenged. By circular dated 11.11.1996, it was provided that a subordinate police officer receiving two Asadharan Karya Puraskars in a calendar year could be considered for out-of-turn promotion. This circular was in existence when the Applicant got two Asadharan Karya Puraskars. This was considered in both the OAs No.50/2002 and 1746/2003 and the directions were given to promote the Applicant from the year 1998.
10. We have also considered the issue whether the Original Application is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The order of the Tribunal directing the Respondents to grant out-of-turn promotion to the Applicant in OA No.1746/2003 is dated 2.01.2004. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the Applicant was promoted on 17.05.2004 on out-of-turn basis. The Applicant has stated that he has been making representations against the above decision and requesting the Respondents to promote him from 1998 instead of from 2004. However, he has not been able to place on record copy of any of the representations given by him to the Respondents. It does, however, appear from the counter affidavit of the Respondents that the Applicant had given a representation to the second Respondent on 3.04.2007 for grant of out-of-turn promotion from the year 1998 instead of from 2004. Although it has been noted in the order of the second Respondent that the Applicant had approached the second Respondent after a lapse of three years from the date of his out-of-turn promotion on 17.05.2004, yet it has not been rejected on the ground of limitation but on the ground that there was no direction in the order dated 2.01.2004 of this Tribunal in OA No.1746/2003 for grant of promotion to the Applicant with retrospective effect and, therefore, the claim of the Applicant was not justified on merit. The representation was rejected on merits. Under these circumstances, we think that the Applicant has a fresh cause of action from the date of the aforesaid order, which is dated 13.06.2007. The Respondents have also stated in the counter affidavit that the case of the Applicant does not stand on merit :
After lapse of a period of 3 years from the date of promotion to the rank of SI (Exe.), the applicant sent a representation to C.P. Delhi on 3.4.2007 requesting therein for the grant of out of turn promotion in the rank of SI from the year 1998 instead of 2004. Without waiting for the outcome/decision of his representation he filed OA No.625/2007 in the Honble CAT on 25.4.2007. However, his representation dated 3.4.2007 has been considered and found that the claim of the applicant does not stand on merit. The applicant has been informed vide U.O. No. 32772/CB-IV/PHQ dated 13.6.2007 (Copy annexed as Annexure R/1). The Respondents have also not raised any objection regarding the Application being barred by limitation. The representation of March, 2007 has been placed at Annex A-2 in which the Applicant has stated in paragraph 6 that he has been making representations and that he had been assured that his representations were under active consideration:
6. That sir being aggrieved by the aforesaid discrimination I have been pursuing my case through representation as will as in person also as per the tune of the concerned officials who have been assuring that my claim is under active consideration but till date I have got no relief at all where as it amounts to clear cut case of contempt of court proceedings. The Applicant has also mentioned the fact that he has been submitting repeated representations in paragraph 4.8 of his OA. This has also not been controverted in the counter affidavit. From the above, it would seem that the representations of the Applicant have been under consideration of the Respondents, which has culminated in the order dated 13.06.2007. On these grounds, we are of the view that the Application is not barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
11. On the basis of above discussion, the impugned order is set aside to the extent that the Applicant would be granted out-of-turn promotion from the year 1998 instead of from 17.05.2004. The Respondents are directed to fix the seniority of the Applicant considering as if the Applicant has been promoted on out-of-turn basis from 1998, on the basis of provisions in Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules referred to above, which states that For purposes of seniority such promotees shall be placed at the bottom of the promotion list drawn up for that year. These directions should be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
( L.K. Joshi ) ( V.K. Bali )
Vice Chairman (A) Chairman
/dkm/