Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh.Raj Singh vs Commissioner Of Police on 27 May, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA-1350/2010
New Delhi, this the 27th day of May, 2011
HONBLE SHRI GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY, MEMBER (A)
1. Sh.Raj Singh
S/o Dayanand
R/o 47 Friend Enclave,
Rajender Park, Nangloi Delhi.
2. Sh. Bijender Sing,
S/o Lakshmi Chand,
R/o F-4/86, Sector-16,
Rohini, Delhi.
3. Suresh Chand,
S/o Mahender Singh
R/o H.No. 87, Sangam Vihar,
Najafgarh.
4. Narender Kumar,
S/o Ramaswaroop,
R/o V.& P.O.Nandal,
Distt. Rohtak, Haryana. . Applicants.
(By Advocate:Shri Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police
PHQ, M.S.O. Building,
IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. The Lt.Governor,
GNCT of Delhi,
Raj Niwas,
Rajpur Road,Delhi. Respondents.
(By Advocate : Shri Amit Anand)
ORDER (ORAL)
Shri G.George Paracken:
The applicants are presently working as Head Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police. In the year 2006 when they were posted in Special Cell of Delhi Police, they had shown exceptional gallant in apprehending dreaded terrorist Paramjeet Singh Bheora, the main accused of the assassination of Late Beant Singh, Ex. Chief Minister of Punjab along with his associates Jasbir Singh and Bhupinder Singh alive. The arrests brought laurels and pride to Delhi Police. They were, therefore, recommended for Out of Turn Promotion in terms of Rule 19(ii) of Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980. In pursuance of the aforesaid recommendations, a duly constituted Incentive Committee met in the year 2006 and screened the relevant records and having found that the applicants alongwith other participants deserve out of turn promotion, submitted favourable recommendations. Hence, vide Annexure A-3 order No.64891/CB-IV/PHQ dated 31.08.2006, other officials of the police team were, namely, Asst. Sub Inspector (ASI) and Constables (Ct.). ASI PRamod Kumar, ASI Kishan Lal, ASI Ranveer Singh and Constable Devender Kumar were granted out of turn promotion.
2. They are aggrieved by the denial of promotion to them on out of turn basis to the next higher rank of Asstt. Sub-Inspector (Exe.) in Delhi Police by the Respondents despite the fact that their cases have been recommended by the Incentive Committee in the year 2006 and the then Commissioner of Police has approved it in terms of Rule 19 (ii) of Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules. They have, therefore, sought a direction from this Tribunal to be issued to the respondents to consider their cases for out of turn promotion to the rank of ASI (Exe.) immediately and to issue necessary consequential orders.
3. However, during the pendency of this OA, the respondents have considered their request and rejected the same vide order dated 23.6.2010 stating that the Commissioner of Police did not find their cases fit for granting out of turn promotion. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
The representations filed by the above mentioned Head Constable (Exe.) have been perused by C.P. Delhi. They were approved for grant of out of turn promotion on the recommendation of the Incentive Committee meeting held on 02.08.2006. This approval was issued by the then Commissioner of Police, Delhi even though there was no vacancy in the rank of ASI(Exe.) and hence the applicants could not be promoted on out of turn promotion basis for want of vacancy of O.T.P. Quota at the relevant time. There is a clause restricting out of turn promotion to total 5% of the vacancies likely to fall vacant in the given year in the rank. There is no rule which permits issuing of out of turn promotion orders by a competent authority when posts do not exist. Hence, out of turn promotions recommended by an earlier incentive Committee and approved by then ten C.P. when there were no vacancies existing in the rank to which the promotion was to be made, confer no right on an individual. Orders of a Commissioner of Police can not bound his successors, may be for years, to grant out of turn promotion.
The case of the above mentioned HCs (Exe.) for out of turn was placed before the Incentive Committee in its meeting held on 21.12.2009 constituted for this purpose consisting of Special Commissioner of Police as Chairman and two Joint Commissioners of Police, Delhi as Members to review. The Committee requisitioned certain documents connected with the incident. On receipt of the documents the case of the above mentioned HCs (Exe.) alongwith other was considered/review by the Incentive Committee in its meeting held on 10.5.2010, 20.5.2010 and 28.5.2010. While reviewing these cases, the Committee went through their citations, representations, documents connected with the incidents and other material available on record. The recommendations of the Incentive Committee is an under:-
The Committee examined the documents connected with the incident in which a police party which included Head Constables Narender Kumar No.478/SB, Suresh Chand No.477/SB, Raj Singh, No.155/SB and Bijender Singh No.159/SB had an encounter with Paramjeet Singh Bheeora @ Kala @Pinka @ Saheb Singh @ Harjeet Singh @ Gurmmet Singh S/o Sh. Jagjeet Singh r/o. Vill. Bheora, Distt. Ropar, Punjab, Jasvir Singh @ Jodha Singh s/o Shiv Dev Singh r/o Vill. Hulka, PS Bainaur, Distt. Patiala Punjab and Bhupinder Singh @ Bikka @ Sukhi s/o Balbir Singh r/o Vill. Hulka, PS Bainaur, Distt. Patiala Punjab, at G.T. Karnal Road, in front of M.C.D. Primary Co-education School, Nangli Puna, Delhi on 20.03.06. In this connection a case FIR No.24/06 u/s 186/353/307/120B/121/121A IPC, 25/27/54/59 Arms Act and 4/5 Explosive Substance Act was registered as PS Special Cell. On scrutiny of the case papers, it was found that neither the FIR nor the DD entryNo.14 dated 20.03.06 recorded by Sub-Inspector Attar Singh on return at Special Cell NR, Rohini, Delhi nor the Charge Sheet of the case reflect any exemplary courage and valour displayed by these officers which warrant out of turn promotion to them.
The FIR mentions that the police party was consisted of Inspr. Pankaj Sood, Inspr. Prithvi Singh, SI Attar Singh, SI Satender, St.Ramesh Sharma, SI Harbir Singh, ASI Ranbir Singh, ASI Kishan Lal, ASI Rakesh Kumar, ASI Parmod Kumar, ASI Rajendra Singh, HC Suresh Cand 346/Crime, HC Preet Singh 125 DRP, HC Narendra Kumar, 275/DRP, HC Raj Singh, 155/SB, HC Bijender 159/SB and Ct.Devender, No.16/DRP. It also mentions that the terrorists had fired at the police party which returned fire in self defence.
The DD entry made by Sub-Inspr. Attar Singh on return to Special Cell, NR, Rohini, Delhi gives brief information about the arrest of the terrorists and mentions that during the exchange of fire Inspr. Pankaj Sood had fired two rounds from his service pistol in retaliation.
FIR and DD entry are silent about any member of the police party sustaining any bullet injury or the bullets fired by criminal hitting the bullet proof jackets worn by the police officers. The Charge Sheet of the case was prepared on 16.06.06 by ACP/Spl.Cell/NR. There is no mention of any specific role of Head Constable Narender Kumar No.478/SB, HC Suresh Chand No.477/SB, HC Raj Singh, No.155/SB and HC Bijender Singh, No.159/SB which would justify out of turn promotion to them.
In the light of the above mentioned facts based on the documents, the Committee feels that Head Constable Narender Kumar No.478/SB , HC Suresh Chand No.477/SB, HC Raj Singh, No.155/SB and HC Bijender Singh, No.159/SB do not deserve out of turn promotions as per rule 19(ii) of Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980 which reads officers who have shown exceptional gallantry and devotion to duty may be promoted on out of turn basis by the Commissioner of Police.
The commissioner of Police, Delhi has examined the recommendations of the Incentive Committee. He is in full agreement with the recommendations of the Incentive Committee. Neither the FIR nor the DD entry No.14 dated 20.03.2006 recorded by SI Attar Singh on returned to Spl.Cell/NR, Rohini, Delhi nor the Charge Sheet of the case reflect any exemplary courage and valour displayed by these officers which warrant out of turn promotion them.
In view of this, it does not seem to be a fit case for out of turn promotion Representations of HCs Narender Kumar No.478/SB, HC Suresh Chand No.477/SB, HC Raj Singh, No.155/SB and HC Bijender Singh No.159/SB are thus void of merits and hence rejected.
4. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the present OA is fully covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in SI Umesh Barthwal Vs. Govt. of NCT Delhi in OA-3681/2009 and other connected cases. The relevant portion of the order in the case of the Applicant in the said OA passed by the Commissioner of Police in his case was as under:
.The representation/petition as well as contention raised in the O.A. have been perused by C.P., Delhi. SI (Exe.) Umesh Kumar Barthyal, No.D-3650 was approved for grant of out of turn promotion on the recommendation of the Incentive Committee held on 04.12.2006. This approval was issued by the then Commissioner of Police, Delhi even though there was no vacancy in the rank of Inspector and hence the applicant could not be promoted on out of turn promotion basis for want of vacancy of O.T.P. Quota at the relevant time. There is a clause restricting out of turn promotion to total 5% of the vacancies likely to fall vacant in the given year in the rank. There is no rule which permits issuing of out of turn promotion orders by a competent authority when posts do not exist. Hence, out of turn promotions recommended by an earlier Incentive Committee and approved by the then C.P. when there were no vacancies existing in the rank to which the promotion was to be made, confer no right on an individual. Orders of a Commissioner of Police cannot bound his successor, may be for years, to grant out of turn promotion. The case of SI (Exe.) Umesh Kumar Barthyal, No.D-3650 for out of turn was, however, again referred, on 29.10.2009 to the Incentive Committee constituted for this purpose consisting of Special Commissioner of Police as Chairman and two Joint Commissioners of Police, Delhi as Members to review the case of the applicant and other seven police personnel. The recommendations of the Incentive Committee which met on 7-9/12/2009 are as under:-
The Commissioner of Police, Delhi has carefully examined the recommendations of the Incentive Committee. He is in full agreement with the recommendations. Merely killing of a wanted criminal in an encounter, per se, does not confer any right upon police officer to a Medal for Gallantry leaving aside an out of turn promotion. In this particular case, there is no specific mention in the FIR of any details regarding any exceptional or exemplary act of gallantry by SI Barthwal was merely a member of a Special Cell team which was engaged in an encounter in which Hemant @ Sonu was killed. Besides, SI Umesh Barthwal who fired five rounds, eight other police officers of various ranks also engaged in firing. Inthis encounter, an ACP and 2 Inspectors sustained one bullet hit each on their bullet proof jackets. It is quite surprising that while the applicant has claimed in his O.A. to be the leader of the police party consisting of the applicant besides HC Surinder, HC Yash Pal, Const. Sunder Lal Gautam and Const. Sunil Kasana, the FIR indicates that the team was led initially by Inspector Lalit Mohan and later, at the spot where Hemant @ Sonu was killed, by Shri Sanjeev Yadav, ACP. Again, while SI Barthwal has ascribed the role of giving repeated directions to surrender to himself, in the FIR this was done by Shri Sanjeev Yadav, ACP. Again, while SI Umesh Kumar Barthwal and HC Yash Pal have stated to have forced entry by breaking open the door, as per the FIR the police party broke through the door and entered the house. In the FIR no specific role has been ascribed to the applicant. The FIR also, incidentally, has been recorded on the complaint of Inspector Lalit Mohan of Special Cell and not on the complaint of SI Umesh Kumar Barthwal. In view of this, it does not seem to be a fit case for out of turn promotion. Conferring of an out of turn promotion requires something more than even a single exceptional act of gallantry for such acts of gallantry the Govt. has already instituted Medals including Police Medal for Gallantry, President?s Police Medal for Gallantry and even Ashok Chakra has been awarded in the acts of gallantry. In conclusion, out of turn promotion is not justified in this case.
5. The SI Umesh Barthwal challenged the aforesaid order of the Commissioner of Police vide OA-3681/2009 (supra) before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide its Order dated 01.6.2010 allowed it, along with connected cases. The operative part of the said order is as under:-
21. The aforesaid interpretation, in our considered view, is the most reasonable and purposeful constructive interpretation of the provisions, which does not frustrate the object of grant of out of turn promotion to the candidates.
22. In the instant case, Commissioner of Police himself interpreting the provision and if we go by this interpretation when vacancies have not arisen in the year when the applicants were approved by the Commissioner for out of turn promotion, should not have considered them at all for out of turn promotion in the next year, as the vacancy for that year when not available, right to be considered in future is extinguished. Further, approbating and reprobating simultaneously by substituting a review incentive committee where the finds are arrived at in variance to the earlier one when such a consideration takes place itself contradicts the stand of the respondents as to filling up the vacancies in the same year, which is belied from their conduct as well. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to rule that by no adhering to the earlier incentive committees recommendations and taking a decision, as if in review, not to grant applicants out of turn promotions, despite approval by the Commissioner of Police and recommendation by the incentive committee, Rule 19 (ii) has been violated.
23. The present is also a case where applicants when sought information on 19.11.2008 it was divulged that in cases where the incentive committee had met and recommended out of turn promotion of certain officers where Commissioner of Police had approved in the same year they have been considered in future years for promotion, which goes to show that the year-wise vacancies had not been adhered to and few examples are SI Kailash Bisht, Pawan Kumar, Vivekanand Jha and in case of Head Constable Rakesh Kumar, Rajender Kumar etc. As there has been a discrimination and selectivity in application of the interpretation, as suggested by the respondents, this invidious discrimination, which does not satisfy the twin tests laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, has violated the fundamental right of applicants for being considered for out of turn promotion as per the statutory rules and established to prove that the administrative authorities, on their whims and fancies by adopting a selectivity in consideration for out of turn promotion, have abused their power, which cannot be countenanced in law, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies, 2009 (8) SCALE 49.
24. We also find that whereas the Tribunal directed consideration of representations of applicants for out of turn promotion, there is no direction to disturb the earlier finding by the incentive committee to come to a contrary view on reviewing the earlier decision of the Police Commissioner, which is an act of coram non judis by the respondents, being administrative or quasi-judicial authorities. Their decision-making process being against the rules vitiates the orders.
25. Resultantly, for the foregoing reasons, OAs are allowed to the extent that impugned orders are set aside. Respondents are directed to consider applicants for out of turn promotion to the rank of Inspector (Executive) and Assistant Sub Inspector (Executive) respectively, as per the ranks held by them in the feeder category on the basis of the recommendations of the earlier incentive committee and approval of the Commissioner of Police. However, on promotion the same would be prospective in effect. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipts of a copy of this order. No costs.
6. The Respondents challenged aforesaid order of this Tribunal before the Honble High Court of Delhi vide Writ Petition No.5444/2010 - Govt. of Delhi & Ors. Vs. HC Raj Kumar and 6 other connected cases. Writ Petition No.5482/2010 - Govt. of Delhi & Ors. Vs. SI Umesh Barthwal was also considered by the High Court in the aforesaid bunch matter and they were disposed of vide common judgment dated 10.12.2010. The operative parts of the said order reads as under:-
38. We find it strange that Sanjeev Shokeen would earn a Presidential Award for Bravery and for the act for which his fellow colleagues likewise earned the Presidential Award for Bravery and now for unexplainable reasons the department turns around and says that Sanjeev Shokeen is not entitled to be put at part with his colleagues, all of whom except HC Bijender Singh, have been granted out of turn promotion. There is another interesting circumstances which we need to highlight. Save and except SI Umesh Barthwal that respondent of WP(C ) No.5482/2010 who seeks a promotion to the post of Inspector, all other respondents who are litigating and such of whom who are not litigating but wee denied the promotion are holders of the rank of a Head Constable and seek promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector. It appears to be a case where not many vacancies are available to the post of Assistant sub-Inspector and for which the department is trying to wriggle out by taking a stand, which we note is contrary to the manner in which the petitioner had been acting in the past. This circumstances and in particular the facts pertaining to HC Sanjeev Shokken cast a serious doubt on the bona fide of the decision taken by the second incentive Committee. We have noted in the various paragraphs above the reasons of the second incentive Committee and to the reader it becomes apparent that the conclusion arrived at by the second incentive Committee is based on the reasoning that in the FIR and the contemporaneous DD entry recorded qua the incidents, the role of the respondent was not evidencing any act of bravery.
39. It is settled law that a DD entry is a cryptic recording of information received at the Police Control Room/Police Station and likewise an FIR is not an encyclopedia and does not contain the minute details pertaining to the incident in respect whereof the information is recorded. It is apparent that the Incentive Committee has ignored relevant and vital material which was considered by the previous Incentive Committee. It is apparent that the Commissioner Police has mechanically approved the recommendations of the second Incentive Committee and we once again highlight the case of HC Sanjeev Shokeen and would not hesitate to put it on record that during arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners could just not submit even a sentence to justify the recommendations of the second Incentive Committee.
40. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal which has set aside the orders dated 11.12.2009/14.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner denying out of turn promotion to the respondents is affirmed. The Commissioner Police is directed to reconsider the matter as directed by the Tribunal and while so doing it is hoped and expected that the Commissioner would be guided by the observations and findings returned by us.
41. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of in above terms.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that subsequent to the aforesaid judgment of the Honble High Court, this Tribunal again considered the same issue in OA-1290/2010 - HC Sheeshpal Vs. Govt. of NCT Delhi and allowed the same vide order dated 27.1.2010. The relevant part of the said OA reads as under:-
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and for parity of reasons, this OA is allowed in terms of the order in SI Umesh Barthwal case (supra) to the extent that the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the applicants case for out of turn promotion on the basis of recommendations of the earlier incentive Committee. Upon such consideration, if the applicant is granted promotion, the same will be prospective in effect. This exercise will be complete within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.
8. Again, a similar case, OA-3398/2010 - SI Neeraj Kumar Vs. GNCT Delhi, was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 21.04.2011. The relevant part of the said order is as under:-
23. We fail to understand how can a different finding be recorded by the new Incentive Committee on their exemplary work when the earlier Incentive Committee had already recommended their case for out of turn promotion by observing that they had done exemplary work. Moreover, there is no provision under which the findings recorded and approved by Commissioner of Police could be reviewed by a subsequent Incentive Committee which is headed only by a Special Commissioner of Police. According to us, it would be travesty of justice if these persons, who were made the basis for granting relief to others are denied the benefit of out of turn promotion. Since two other persons from the same team have been granted the relief by none other than the courts on the ground that out of turn promotion has been granted to the applicants before us, we see no justification as to why the same should be denied to the applicants. Even in Satyavir Singhs case respondents had taken the ground that he could not be given out of turn promotion because of non-availability of vacancies in out of turn promotion quota. In spite of it, relief was granted by this Tribunal to HC Satyavir Singh, which was upheld by the Honble High Court of Delhi and respondents have implemented that order also, therefore, this contention is without any merit. Moreover, applicant has invited our attention to page 110 at 116 wherein details of vacancies calculated for out of turn promotion quota in the rank of Inspector (Executive) and ASI (Executive) from the year 2005 to 2008 was provided to the applicant under Right to Information Act. Perusal of same shows that in the year 2007, the total vacancies of Inspectors were 135. The 5% quota for out of turn promotion was 6, but only 4 vacancies were filled on out of turn promotion. Similarly, the total vacancies of ASI for the year 2007 were 391, out of which 19 were meant for out of turn promotion quota, but only 4 were filled on out of turn promotion meaning thereby the vacancies were very much available in the year 2007 in the rank of Inspector and ASI both. Applicant has specifically filed this document with the OA which has not been disputed by the respondents.
24. In view of above, it is clear that the ground taken by the respondents that the vacancies of Inspector and ASI were not available under out of turn promotion quota in 2007 is wrong. As such orders dated 22.7.2010 whereby the claim of applicants for out of turn promotion has been rejected in both the OAs are quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to give promotion to both the applicants on out of turn basis with effect from 24.7.2007, the date when other members of the same team were given the out of turn promotion. It goes without saying that applicants would be entitled to all the consequential benefits.
25. OA stands allowed with the above directions. No costs.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied on the order of this Tribunal in OA-3404/2010 - HC Udaibir Singh Vs. GNCT of Delhi and Ors. and the following consequential order was issued by the respondents vide letter dated 19.04.2011:
FOR PUBLICATION IN THE DELHI POLICE GAZETTE:DELHI.
(Orders passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi) Dated: 19/4/2011 No.22594/CB-IV)/PHQ: PROMOTON: In pursuance of order dated 8.3.11 of the Honble CAT in OA No. 3404/2010-HC Udaibir Singh Vs. GNCT of Delhi & Ors. HC (Exe.) Udaibir Singh No.2140/DAP, 599/SB (PIS No.28861677) is hereby granted ad-hoc promotion on out of turn basis to the next higher rank of ASI (Exe.), under Rule 19 (ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980 with immediate effect. He will have no claim for seniority etc. and is liable for reversion at any time without assigning any reason. His ad hoc promotion will be dependent on his continued good work and conduct during the period of such promotion.
P190411-143-0001 Sd/-
(ISHWAR SINGH) DCP/ESTT.
FOR COMMISSIONER OF POLICE:
DELHI.
No.22595-640/CB-IV/PHQ dt. 19/04/11.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents Shri Amit Anand opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. According to the reply affidavit of the respondents, the request for the grant of out of turn promotion to the next higher rank in respect of the following police officials was received in the Head Quarters from DCP/Special Cel (SB) on 12.04.2006 in connection with the arrest of Paramjeet Singh Bheora, Chief Operations of `Babbar Khalsa International and two other terrorists namely Jasbir Singh and Bhupinder Singh on 20.03.2006:-
1. ASI Parmod Kumar, No.663/SB 28860527
2. ASI Krishan Pal, No. 1223/D 28823183
3. ASI Ranbir Singh, No.662/SB 28890298
4. HC Raj Singh, No. 155/SB 28890543 (Applicant No.1)
5. HC Bijender Singh, No.159/SB 28850565 (Applicant No.2)
6. HC Suresh Chand, No.477/SB 28892725 (Applicant No.3)
7. HC Narender Kr. No. 478/SB 28861479 (Applicant No.4)
8. Ct. Devender No.489/SB 28881744 The Incentive Committee has considered their citations at its meeting held on 02.08.2006 and recommended them for the grant of out of turn promotion to the next higher rank and was approved by the then Commissioner of Police, Delhi. Accordingly, ASI Parmod Kumar No.663/SB, ASI Krishan Lal, No. 1223/D and ASI Ranbir Singh, No. 662/SB were granted out of turn promotion to the next higher rank of Sub Inspector (Exe.) and Constable Devender Kumar, No.489/SB was promoted as Head Constable (Exe.) vide Notification No. 64891-991/CB-IV/PHQ dt. 31.08.2006 as vacancies of OTP quota were available only in the rank of SI (Exe.) and Head Constable (Exe.) at that time. Orders regarding grant of out of turn promotion to the next higher rank of ASI (Exe.) in respect of, however, the following HCs (Exe.) were not granted out of turn promotion at that time for want of vacancies under the OTP quota in the rank of ASI (Exe.):-
1. HC Raj Singh, No. 155/SB 28890543 (Applicant No.1)
2. HC Bijender Singh, No.159/SB 28850565 (Applicant No.2)
3. HC Suresh Chand, No.477/SB 28892725 (Applicant No.3)
4. HC Narender Kr. No. 478/SB 28861479 (Applicant No.4) They submitted their representations to Commissioner of Police, Delhi for grant of out of turn promotion. On processing their case, it was seen that the earlier Incentive Committees and the then CP, Delhi have approved out of turn promotion to all the aforesaid 8 police personnel without considering the availability of vacancies in their respective ranks, as Rule 19 (ii) of Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980 restricts out of turn promotion to total 5% of the vacancies in the rank likely to fall vacant in the given year. Hence, the out of turn promotions recommended by the earlier Incentive Committee and approved by the then Commissioner of Police could not be implemented. However, it was decided that all cases where out of turn promotion have been recommended by the earlier Incentive Committee and approved by the then Commissioner of Police but promotion could not be given for want of vacancies should be considered by the Incentive Committee afresh. Accordingly, the cases of the applicants and other similarly placed others were put up before the Incentive Committee constituted for this purpose consisting of Special Commissioner of Police as Chairman and 2 Joint Commissioners of Police as Members on 21.12.2009, to review. As all the requisite documents in respect of all of them were not available on that date, the Incentive Committee held further meeting on 10.05.2010, 20.05.2010 and 28.05.2010. However, after considering the cases of applicants, the Committee came to the conclusion that they do not deserve any out of turn promotion in terms of Rule 19 (ii) of Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980 and same conclusion was approved by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi and, accordingly, they were informed under Annexure R1 UO No. 31745/CB-IV/PHQ dated 24.06.2010.
11. We have heard Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Amit Anand, learned counsel for the respondents. In our considered view, the case of the applicant is saqurely covered by judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Umesh Barthwal [OA-3681/2009 (supra)] and other connected case. We have also seen the Orders passed by this Tribunal in HC Sheeshpal Vs. GNCT of Delhi & Ors (supra), in SI Neeraj Kumar Vs. GNCT of Delhi & Ors. (supra) and in Udaivir Singh vs. GNCT of Delhi (supra). It has already been held in the case of Neeraj Kumar (supra) that new Incentive Committee cannot sit in judgment over the previous Incentive Committee and record a different finding. However, we appreciate the contention of the respondents that there were no vacancies for the post of ASIs under the Out of Turn Promotion quota at the time when others have been given such promotion on 31.08.2006. The respondents should have promoted them against the vacancies which have arisen in the said quota subsequently.
12. In view of above, we allow this OA. Respondents are directed to grant Out of Turn promotion to the applicants on the basis of recommendations of the earlier Incentive Committee from the date the first Head Constable who has been granted Out of Turn Promotion after 31.08.2006 with all consequential benefits except arrears of pay and allowances. If no such promotions have been made, the applicants shall be promoted first from the vacancies available for such Out of Turn promotions. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
(Dr.Veena Chhotray ) (G.George Paracken)
Member(A) Member(J)
rb