Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishram Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 April, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 12th OF APRIL, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 18149 of 2013
Between:-
VISHRAM SHUKLA S/O SHRI GURU PRASAD
SHUKLA , AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PLATOON COMMANDER SPECIAL BRANCDH
TRAINING BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SHIVAM MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH TH:PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN,BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEAD
QUARTER (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
[ADM INSITRATION] POLICE HEAD QUARTER
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI DHEERAJ TIWARI, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER, FOR THE
RESPONDENTS/STATE)
T h is petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is not challenging any particular order but is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents for not granting him out of turn promotion from the post of Platoon Commander to the post of Company Commander despite exhibiting extraordinary gallantry and devotion to the duty on many occasions.
Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable (General Duty) on 7.1.1981 in the 9th Battalion SAF, Signature Not Verified SAN Rwa. Thereafter, he was promoted as Head Constable on 7.8.1987 and Assistant Platoon Commander in the year 2008. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 2022.04.13 17:21:21 IST 2 Platoon Commander on 30.8.2013. During his entire service, the petitioner has been awarded around 50-60 awards and not a single punishment has been awarded to him during this period. The name of petitioner was also recommended for President Medal.
While serving in the aforesaid Battalion, the petitioner was posted as Gunman to Shri Kedar Nath Shukl, the then MLA from Legislative Assembly, Sidhi. During Assembly elections, on the date of polling i.e. 1.12.2003, intimation was received by Shri Shukl that booth capturing is taking place at Polling Centre Chamrauha, District Sidhi. On receipt of information, he rushed to the polling centre. The persons involved in the booth capturing attacked Shri Kedar Nath Shukl, when he protested against the ongoing illegal activity. The vehicle belonging to Shri Kedar Nath Shukl was badly damaged by those anti-social elements. The petitioner by exhibiting extra-ordinary courage was able to escort Shri Kedar Nath Shukl to the vehicle. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was attacked by those persons and he became unconscious. The petitioner had to suffer serious injuries on his head, both legs, back and chest and was hospitalized, where he underwent treatment. The FIR was also lodged at Police Station, Sidhi on 1.12.2003. The incident of booth capturing was also published in Daily Newspaper Danik Jagran dated 2.12.2003. It is submitted that the incident could have been much more damaging but due to the courage shown by the petitioner, he could manage to save MLA. Shri K.N.Shukl requested the Chief Minister to recommend gallantry award and sent a letter on 2.7.2012 for grant of out of turn promotion to the petitioner under Para 70-A of the Police Regulations.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Para 70-A of the Police Regulation provides the conditions of promotion and for the purpose of convenience, the same is reproduced as under :-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 70, a Constable may be promoted to the rank of Head Constable by the Superintendent of Police with the prior Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 2022.04.13 17:21:21 IST approval of the Directors General of Police and a Head 3 Constable to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector by the Deputy Inspector General of Police with the prior approval of the Director General of Police if he has distinguished himself in anti dacoit operations, law and order situations of shooting competitions or in some other field of duty or who has been awarded the President’s Police Medal for Gallantry or for meritorious/distinguished services, if he considers him suitable for promotion. Similarly the Inspector General of Police may promote an Assistant Sub-
Inspector to the rank of Sub-Inspector and a Sub-Inspector to the rank of an Inspector on similar grounds if found suitable for promotion and subject to the prior approval of the Director General of Police. The number of Officers promoted under this Regulation shall not exceed 10 percent."
In the aforesaid circumstances, the respondents may be directed to convene a DPC i.e. Departmental Promotion Committee for grant of out of turn promotion due to the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned counsel for State vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches. The petition has been filed after laps of 10 years, for which no explanation has been putforth. He further submitted that out of turn promotion is not legal right of the petitioner. Even the MLA forwarded the case of petitioner for out of turn promotion in the year 2012, without explaining the delay. The out of turn promotion can be extended only after the authority is satisfied that the act performed by the petitioner is of such nature, which makes him entitled for the same. In the present case, the Superintendent of Police had not recommended the case of petitioner for out of turn promotion. Accordingly, no case for interference is called for and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJALDate: 2022.04.13 17:21:21 IST Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that as per Clause -5 of 4 the Circular dated 9.10.1987, the case for grant of out of turn promotion is to be considered after one year from the date of incident.
Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the incident took place in the year 2003 but thereafter as per Circular dated 9.10.1987 the case of the petitioner was not recommended by the Superintendent of Police, therefore, it became time barred. Moreover, there is also no explanation to the recommendation of Shri Shukl as to why he kept mum for a period of 8 years and did not recommend the case of petitioner. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, no relief can be granted at this stage.
The petition is bereft of merit and substance and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE TG /-
Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 2022.04.13 17:21:21 IST