Delhi High Court
Si Ex. Naresh Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. on 6 March, 2007
Equivalent citations: 141(2007)DLT96
Author: Mukul Mudgal
Bench: Mukul Mudgal, Aruna Suresh
JUDGMENT Mukul Mudgal, J.
Page 1066
1. Rule DB.
2. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing.
3. This Writ Petition challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 30th September, 2007 which relates to the out of turn promotion available to the officers of Delhi Police in respect of the rewards for arresting of Proclaimed Offenders (PO).
4. In this Writ Petition we are concerned with the effect of the Circular dated 29th November, 1992 which reads as follows:
CIRCULAR No. 10/CB-VI/PHQ Subject :- Reward for arresting proclaimed offenders.
It has been noticed that a number of subordinate officers have taken been interest in arresting proclaimed offenders. Some of these officials have arrested as many as 200 proclaimed offenders which act is indeed commendable. In order to recognize their hard work and commitment to duty, these officers have been given, from time to time, varying rewards, including out of turn promotion. In order to have a uniform policy for recognizing the services of such officers, the following norms have been set for award of different categories of rewards:
1. OUT OF TURN PROMOTION Out of turn promotion will be given to an officer who apprehends:
i) More than 75 POs in one year, or
ii) More than 125 POs in two years, or
iii) More than 250 POs in five years.
II. ASADHARAN KARYA PURASKAR 50 POs in two years.
Page 1067
2. It has also been decided in CP's law and order meeting held on 11.6.92 that a portion of reward should go to that police officers on whose information the arrest of a PO is made. As such, all DCPs while sending recommendation in future, under incentive scheme will follow the above norms and also indicate the names of police officers/men on whose information arrest of a particular P.O. was made.
These instructions may be given wide publicity by announcing in Roll Call etc. for at least 3 days so that the officers are aware of the scheme and take suitable follow action.
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid circular citation was issued in favor of the Petitioner on 7th March, 2001 which recommended the name of the Petitioner for out of turn promotion as per the Circular dated 29th November, 1992. The Petitioner however, was not granted the recommended out of turn promotion though he was granted commendation on 26th February, 2002 in addition to a sum of Rs.5,000/- as a cash reward. This was challenged in Appeal departmentally by the Petitioner and the Appeal was dismissed on 14th February, 2003. The only ground on which the Petitioner was denied the out of turn promotion was due to the stand taken by the Respondent that the benefit of the circular of 29th November 1992 could not be granted to the Petitioner as in a latter circular dated 21st May, 2001, the method and manner of calculating the arrests of proclaimed offenders (PO's) was that the arrests occasioned by production warrants were not to be reckoned for arriving at the figure of 75 arrests entitling the Petitioner to an out of turn promotion. This was based on the Respondents splitting up the Petitioner's arrests of Proclaimed Offenders into 59 physical arrests and 16 arrests through the production warrants issued by Courts. The Petitioner challenged the denial of the out of turn promotion to him by placing reliance on Circular dated 29th November, 1992 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal arrived at the following findings:
So far the plea of the respondents that these Circulars will have retrospective effect is concerned, we have no hesitation in rejecting the said contention. This is for the reason that on 7.3.2001, the Officer/In-charge, Police Station, Kotwali had recommended the claim of the applicant for out of turn promotion. The Circulars have been issued thereafter. Once the vested right had accrued to the applicant, if any, it could not have been withdrawn or taken away by a subsequent Circular. Therefore, the principle that a clarificatory circular necessarily will have a retrospective effect, has no application in the facts of the present case.
6. However, on the application of the Circular dated 29th November, 1992 it was also held that Circular dated 21st May, 2001 would not apply retrospectively and Circular of 29th November, 1992 held the field only this part of the finding of the Tribunal has been challenged by the Petitioner and the Petitioner in fact placed reliance on the said finding to contend that as per the application of the aforesaid circular one Surender Kumar Sand as averred in para 4 and 5 has been granted out of turn promotion even though he had only 59 physical arrests and 16 production warrant arrests. The Page 1068 learned senior counsel for the Petitioner Shri Rajeev Dutta submitted that the cash award of Rs.5,000/- was not availed of by the Petitioner as he had challenged this Award in Appeal. The Petitioner had been denied the out of turn promotion in view of the stand of the Respondent that he had only 65 physical arrests and 13 proclaimed offenders were apprehended through issuance of the production warrants. This was done by invoking the effect of the Circular dated 21st May, 2001.
7. The averments in respect of Surender Kumar Sand is to be found in paragraph 4 and 5 of the Writ Petition and read as follows:
That on 23.04.2003, the Petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 1 against the order of P.H.Q.'s UO No. 7489/CB-IV dated 30.01.2003 through proper channel inter alias on the ground of discrimination and parity. (Representation dated 23.04.2003 placed as ANNEXURE P-8). The Petitioner in his representation referred a case of Inspector Surender Kumar Sand who was given an out of promotion in accordance with the policy frame work laid down in the circular dated 29.11.1992 for his performance during the period between 11.05.1992 and 8.5.1993. The arrest of P.O.s made by Inspector Surender Kumar Sand are as follows:
(a) Proclaimed offenders physically arrested - 59
(b) Proclaimed offenders arrested through Production warrant - 16
(c) Weightage or arrests given for arrest of P.O.s in more than one case (four were P.O.s in two cases each and one was P.O. in three cases) - 6 TOTAL ARRESTS - 81 On the other hand, the petitioner has arrested 78 P.O.s between the period 22.02.2000 and 21.02.2001 which includes 65 physical arrests and 13 arrests on production warrant. In all the 13 cases of arrest on production warrants, the petitioner has worked single handedly and he has himself traced the arrest of P.O.s in other criminal cases at the relevant time. The petitioner had got the production warrants issued by the Ld. Courts and arrested the P.O.s by due process of law for formal arrest and after necessary interrogation.
8. This averment has been dealt with in the Counter Affidavit at page 142-143, para 8-9 as follows:
In reply to para 8 & 9 it is submitted that the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 6.4.03 against the decision dated 30.1.03. The said representation was received from DCP/North Distt. Vide his office Memo. Dated 23.4.03 for taking necessary action. His representation was examined in the light of instructions on the subject as well as the orders/decision of the Tribunal, delivered in O.A. No. 1443 of 2000. Rishi Pal Singh v. State of Delhi and Ors. It is further submitted that in his representation the petitioner had cited the case of Inspr. Surender Kumar Sand who was granted promotion for arresting the P.O.s. The case of Inspector Surender Kumar Sand was considered by the Incentive Committee in the year 1994 and was granted promotion Page 1069 on 5.8.1994. Whereas the case of the petitioner was received on 11.6.2001 and the same was examined in the light of instruction on the subject existing at that time, copy annexed as Annexure R-I, II & III. Since the claim of the petitioner for the grant of out of turn promotion was not covered under the existing instructions at that time and as such he was granted Commendation Roll with cash reward of Rs.5,000/-.
9. The above averments clearly shows that in the case of Surender Kumar Sand the Respondent had applied the criteria of giving benefit of even production warrant arrest. The said averment has not been denied in the said Counter Affidavit and accordingly, no explanation is forthcoming from the respondents as to how the Petitioner too is not entitled to the similar treatment as granted to Shri Surender Kumar Sand.
10. Ms. Ansuiya Salwan, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Respondent had contended that since the Tribunal's order was eventually in favor of the Respondent though she chose not to contest the Tribunal's order and since the order was challenged by the Petitioner in this Court, it was open to her to contend that the finding against her of the prospective operation of the circular of 21st May, 2001 could not be upheld. She further states that the said findings of perspective operation of the Circular of 21st May, 2001 should not be sustained.
11. We are of the view that since the challenge to the CAT's order is only by the Petitioner who has infact relied upon the findings in paragraph 10 about the perspective operation of Circular dated 21st May, 2001 and whatever be the reasons for non-challenging of the said findings it is not open to the Respondents to collectorally seek to contend that the said findings of the perspective operation of the said circular dated 21st May, 2001 was not justified.
12. We are unable to agree with the conclusion of the Tribunal which denies the Petitioner the benefit of the Circular of 29.11.1992 for the following reasons:
(a) Having arrived at a finding that the latter circular of 13th May, 2001 was not retrospective, the rational of the said Circular could not be applied to the case of the Petitioner particularly when the Respondents had not challenged in this Court the findings of the prospective operation of the Circular of 21st May, 2001.
(b) The Respondents having applied the principle of adding the arrests of production warrants in the case of Surender Kumar Sand, could not deny it to the Petitioner as such denial would violate Article 14 and 16.
(c) The recommendation for out of turn promotion was made on 7th March, 2001 and his claim being justified could not be covered under a circular issued only on 21st May, 2001.
(d) In any case the rationale to deny the benefits of the arrests of the Proclaimed offenders merely because it was on the basis of a production warrant does not appear to be wholly logical.
13. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Petitioner should be granted the same treatment as granted to Sh. Surender Kumar Sand and be given the benefit of Circular dated 29th November, 1992 so as to count even the arrest made through production warrants towards his out of turn promotion.
Page 1070
14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the Respondents are directed to give the benefit of Circular dated 29th November, 1992 to the Petitioner on or before 7th May, 2007 with consequential benefits not later than 30th April, 2007.
15. We clarify that consequential benefits when given shall not involve any emoluments for the past period. The financial benefits will be from the date of this judgment. However, all promotions and seniority will be from 1st April, 2001 as the Petitioner was recommended departmentally for this benefit on 7th March, 2001 as per the existing circular dated 29th November, 1992.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.