Delhi High Court - Orders
Hariher Prasad vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 June, 2021
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Amit Bansal
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5681/2021
HARIHER PRASAD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber & Mr.
Anshuman Mehrotra, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with
Mr. Akshat Singh, GP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 01.06.2021 [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] C.M.No.17753/2021(for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 5681/2021
3. The petitioner, presently an Inspector with the respondents Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), has filed this petition inter alia seeking re- fixation of his seniority, consequential promotions and grant of benefit of the Old Pension Scheme.
4. It is the case of the petitioner, that (i) he participated in the recruitment process pursuant to advertisement of the year 2002 of the Staff Selection Commission (SSC), for recruitment of Sub-Inspectors in Central Police Organizations; (ii) the result of the written examination was declared on 18th February, 2003 and in which the petitioner qualified; (iii) the W.P.(C) 5681/2021 Page 1 of 5 petitioner underwent the Physical Standards Test/Physical Efficiency Test, in March-April, 2003 and Medical Examination, in June-July 2003; (iv) the petitioner, in the Medical Examination was declared unfit; (v) the petitioner applied for examination by Review Medical Board but there was a delay in convening the Review Medical Board and in the interregnum, the final result was declared on 28th July, 2003 and those who had qualified therein, joined by December, 2003 i.e. prior to the coming into force of the New Pension Scheme and thus were eligible to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme;
(vi) the Review Medical Board was ultimately held in July, 2004 and in which the petitioner was declared fit and was interviewed in August, 2004 and issued the appointment letter dated 12th May, 2005 and joined on 9th June, 2005; (vii) however in the Medical Examination pursuant to joining, the petitioner was again declared unfit and applied for review and in the Review Medical Examination held on 24th November, 2005, declared fit and finally allocated and joined respondents CRPF as Sub-Inspector, on 27th February, 2006 and completed his training in September, 2007; (viii) though the delay in joining of about two and a half years, was attributable to the defective Medical Board results of the respondents CRPF but the respondents CRPF, on the petitioner joining as Sub-Inspector in September, 2007, fixed the seniority of the petitioner, not with his batch of the year 2002 but along with the batch of the year 2006 and accordingly also deprived the petitioner of the benefit of Old Pension Scheme and placed the petitioner in the New Pension Scheme; (ix) on 18th May, 2010, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Inspector, while his batch mates of the year 2002 had been promoted as Inspector, in the year 2007-2008; (x) in pursuance to the orders passed in writ petitions filed by others (particulars W.P.(C) 5681/2021 Page 2 of 5 whereof are given in the body of the writ petition), though the petitioner was granted the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme but the petitioner was not given the seniority and the promotions as per the seniority due to the petitioner; (xi) finally, vide order dated 10th December, 2019, the petitioner has been given his due seniority; and, (xii) however though the petitioner as per the said seniority is required to be appointed to the post of Inspector with effect from 2007 and as Assistant Commandant with effect from 2014 and have seniority of 2014 as Assistant Commandant but has not been granted the said promotions.
5. Finding the petitioner himself to have in paragraph 27 of the petition pleaded that he has been granted the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme, we have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, why the relief in that regard has been claimed in the petition.
6. The counsel for the petitioner states that the account of the petitioner under the New Pension Scheme has not been converted till date into that under Old Pension Scheme.
7. We may however record that the petitioner, in para 26 of the petition has pleaded that the respondents, vide an order extended benefits to the petitioner by transferring/converting his NPF account into GPF account.
8. As far as the claim of the petitioner with respect to seniority is concerned, finding that the petitioner, though has the same seniority since September, 2007, as today, has not once protested thereagainst, we have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, how can the petitioner be granted the relief of re-fixation of his seniority, after nearly 15 years of delay and whether not the claim of the petitioner for seniority, made for the first time in this petition and without the petitioner having not protested even W.P.(C) 5681/2021 Page 3 of 5 departmentally in the past, can be allowed. A claim for seniority is inter se others and once a personnel allows the seniority to attain finality and does not protest thereagainst, he cannot wake up from his slumber whenever so desires and seek to jump the queue over others. Such jumping of the queue, after nearly 15 years, causes a lot of upsets, affecting the discipline of a force like the respondents CRPF.
9. The counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to Annexure P-15 to the petition, being the order dated 10th December, 2019 vide which the petitioner at serial no. 3113-A has been given date of seniority of 28th July, 2003. It is contended that the relief which the petitioner is seeking is consequential to the said order dated 10th December, 2019. 10 Though for the aforesaid reasons, we are entertaining this petition qua seniority but have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, whether not grant of such seniority will make the petitioner senior to those, who till now, for the last 15 years, have in the seniority lists published from time to time, been senior to the petitioner.
11. The counsel for the petitioner admits that grant of seniority, as sought, would result in such a situation.
12. The petitioner has not impleaded those who would be affected by the seniority sought by the petitioner and without having heard the said persons, the relief cannot be granted.
13. The petitioner is thus directed to implead all the said persons as respondents to the said petition and an amended memo of parties be filed on or before 15th July, 2021.
14. Issue notice to the respondents CRPF as well as the prospective respondents.
W.P.(C) 5681/2021 Page 4 of 515. The counsel for the respondents CRPF appearing on advance notice accepts notice.
16. The counsel for the official respondents to, on amended memo of parties being filed by the petitioner, also inform all the private respondents so impleaded, of this petition, by issuing a Signal and by giving particulars of the counsel for the petitioner, to enable the private respondents to collect copies of the petition from the counsel for the petitioner.
17. The counsel for the petitioner to also independently take steps for service of the newly impleaded respondents by such means as may be practical.
18. Counter affidavits be filed on or before 30th August, 2021. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
19. List on 27th September, 2021.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AMIT BANSAL, J JUNE 1, 2021 ak W.P.(C) 5681/2021 Page 5 of 5