Delhi High Court
Shankar Lal Jat vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 September, 2024
Author: Rekha Palli
Bench: Rekha Palli
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 18.09.2024
+ W.P.(C) 9076/2020
SHANKAR LAL JAT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ankur Chibber, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Jaswinder Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. By way of the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is presently serving as an Assistant Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the signal dated 01.09.2020 and letter dated 06.10.2020 whereby the representation made by the Petitioner to place his seniority along with his batchmates was rejected by the respondents;
(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner at par with his colleagues of the 44th batch, to which he was originally selected to as per his merit in the original 44 th Batch with all consequential benefits; and
(iii) Pass any such orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the light of above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case."Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9076/2020 Page 1 of 15 By:SAURABH RAWAT Signing Date:20.09.2024 10:19:39
2. As per the brief factual matrix emerging from record, upon the respondents inviting applications for the post of Assistant Commandant by way of an advertisement issued in August, 2010, the petitioner applied for the said post and upon emerging successful in the recruitment process, he was issued an offer of appointment on 08.02.2013. Based on his acceptance of the offer of appointment, he was, by way of a gazette notification dated 18.04.2013 issued by the Hon'ble President of India, appointed w.e.f. 24.03.2013 as an Assistant Commandant in the CRPF as a part of the 44th Batch of Directly Appointed Gazetted Officers (DAGO).
3. Taking into account the large number of officers who had been selected as Assistant Commandants in the 44th Batch of DAGO and the limited capacity of the training institutions, the basic training of the 44th Batch was conducted in three sub-batches i.e. 44(A), 44(B) and 44(C). However, the trainees of all these sub-batches were treated at par and their seniority as per Rules was to be fixed as per their merit position which was to be determined by the aggregate of the marks obtained by them in the selection process, and the basic training. The petitioner who was placed in the 44(C) Batch of DAGO, reported at the CRPF Academy, Kadapur, Gurgaon for training on 24.03.2013. After undergoing training at the CRPF Academy, Kadapur, he was detailed for further training at CTC-CBE-CRPF, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. It was there that the petitioner, on 09.07.2013, met with an accident while performing the 'horse vaulting' exercise in which his right leg was injured. He was, subsequently, rushed to the Station Hospital, CTC CRPF, Coimbatore where he was admitted for further treatment. Upon discharge from the hospital, he was, due to Internal Derangement of his Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9076/2020 Page 2 of 15 By:SAURABH RAWAT Signing Date:20.09.2024 10:19:39 Right Knee (IDK-RT), prescribed bed rest for a period of one month from 17.07.2013 to 16.08.2013.
4. On 07.08.2013, a Court of Inquiry (CoI) was convened to determine the circumstances in which the petitioner had suffered the said injury. As per the findings rendered by the CoI on 25.09.2013, it was opined that the injury suffered by the petitioner was during bona fide government duty without there being any negligence on his part and consequently, his period of rest and treatment was regularised. The CoI recommended that taking into account his medical condition; he should be relegated to the next batch of DAGO for undergoing training.
5. Accordingly, based on this opinion of the CoI, the respondents, as per their Standing Order No. 01//2009, issued an order in February, 2014 relegating the petitioner to the 45th Batch of DAGO to complete his basic training. The petitioner's seniority was, however, protected at that stage and he was, as per his merit position, placed in the seniority list of Assistant Commandants from the 44th Batch of DAGO. Resultantly, in the gradation list of Assistant Commandants issued for the year 2014, the name of the petitioner was placed at serial no. 1435, which was immediately below Sh. Pankaj Sharma, i.e, his batchmate from the 44 th DAGO, who had been appointed on the same date as the petitioner, i.e, 24.03.2013.
6. The petitioner successfully completed his training with the 45th Batch, in February 2015 and was then posted to the 45th Battalion, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, whereafter, upon successful completion of his period of probation, he was vide order dated 19.12.2015, confirmed on the post of Assistant Commandant along with his batchmates. However, in the gradation list of Assistant Commandants issued for the year 2015, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9076/2020 Page 3 of 15 By:SAURABH RAWAT Signing Date:20.09.2024 10:19:39 petitioner's name was placed at serial no. 1342, though Sh.Pankaj Sharma, who was his aforementioned batchmate, was placed at serial no. 1172. This was on account of the respondents moving the petitioner's name from the 44th Batch to the 45th Batch of DAGO, with his name being placed at top of the 45th Batch. This position continued in the subsequent seniority list as well.
7. On 14.03.2017, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened by the respondents to consider cases of eligible DAGO for grant of financial upgradation, pursuant whereto, the petitioner was, along with his batchmates from the 44th Batch of DAGO, granted Senior Time Scale w.e.f. 25.03.2017 i.e. the date when he completed four years service as an Assistant Commandant of the 45th Batch.
8. Being aggrieved by this downgraded seniority position, the petitioner, on 04.09.2019, submitted a representation to the competent authority seeking re-fixation of his seniority position and praying that he be placed immediately before Sh. Pankaj Sharma i.e. his batchmate from the 44th DAGO. The said representation was rejected by the respondents vide their orders dated 01.09.2020 and 06.10.2020. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court.
9. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have erred in fixing the seniority of the petitioner with that of DAGO belonging to the 45th Batch, i.e. the batch to which he was relegated only for the purposes of completing his basic training, instead of fixing his seniority with the 44th Batch of DAGO to which he belonged. He submits that it is not as if the petitioner missed his training wilfully; he was, Mr.Chibber, contends compelled to discontinue the training midway on Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9076/2020 Page 4 of 15 By:SAURABH RAWAT Signing Date:20.09.2024 10:19:39 account of the injury suffered by him during training. Once the CoI unequivocally opined that the injury sustained by the petitioner was during bona fide government duty and consequently, directed regularisation of the period during which he was undergoing treatment and advised rest, the downgrading of the petitioner's seniority would amount to punishing him for no fault of his.
10. By placing reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) no. 6275/2016 titled 'M.V Sheshagiri v. Union of India & Ors.', he submits that the seniority of the officers has to be reckoned from the date they report for training. The petitioner having joined the training with the 44th Batch i.e. much before the DAGO appointed in the 45th Batch commenced their training, he cannot be assigned seniority with the 45th Batch, especially when it is an admitted position that he was relegated to the said Batch by the respondents themselves. He further places reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4940/2011 titled 'Krishna Kumar Singh v. Union of India' to contend that the seniority of the DAGO is required to be fixed as per Rule 8(b)(ii) of the CRPF Rules, which prescribes that the inter-se seniority of officers has to be determined as per their merit position, which is calculated by the aggregate of the marks obtained by them at the time of selection and on the completion of their training. He, therefore, submits that the respondents cannot, by referring to the Standing Order No.01/2009, which is in the nature of executive instructions, deprive the petitioner of his due seniority to which he is entitled as per the Rules. Furthermore, para 3(vi) of the Standing Order would apply only to those officers who wilfully do not join the training or deliberately miss the training.
11. Finally, he submits that while the petitioner's seniority was correctly Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9076/2020 Page 5 of 15 By:SAURABH RAWAT Signing Date:20.09.2024 10:19:39 reflected in the gradation list for the year 2014, the respondents have arbitrarily and illegally fixed his seniority with the officers of the 45th Batch of DAGO in the gradation list for the year 2015. The petitioner's seniority ought to have been fixed along with his original Batch especially when the respondents knowing well that he had joined service on 24.03.2013, granted him the benefit of Senior Time Scale w.e.f. 25.03.2017 at par with his batchmates from the 44(C) Batch of DAGO. By placing reliance on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. (C) 10303 of 2018, titled 'S.R. Arun kumar v. Union of India and Ors.', he contends that despite the petitioner being relegated to the 45th Batch for completing his basic training, his seniority position could not have been downgraded. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to re-fix the petitioner's seniority along with the DAGO from his original Batch i.e, the 44th Batch of DAGO, as per his merit position.
12. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the petition and submits that the writ petition ought to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches itself as the gradation list which the petitioner is assailing was issued in the year 2015. He submits that the petitioner cannot now be permitted to disturb the established seniority position at this belated stage. Further, by placing reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Madan Mohan Joshi, (2008) 6 SCC 797 and Suresh v. Yeotmal Dist. Central Co-op Bank Ltd. & Anr. AIR 2008 SC 2432, he submits that the petitioner has not impleaded officers whose seniority is likely to be affected by re-fixation of his seniority and therefore, contends that the writ petition ought to be rejected on the ground of non-joinder of parties.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9076/2020 Page 6 of 15 By:SAURABH RAWAT Signing Date:20.09.2024 10:19:3913. Further, he submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on merits as well. The petitioner having been relegated to the 45th Batch due to his inability to complete training on account of his injury, his seniority was correctly fixed at the top of the said Batch with which he had completed the training. He submits that as per para 3(vi) of the Standing Order No.01/2009 issued on 12.01.2009, once a trainee officer misses training for more than thirty days, irrespective of the reason of his absence, he forfeits his claim to inter se seniority along with his original batch. In the present case, the petitioner admittedly was not fit to complete training alongwith the 44th Batch and was consequently, relegated to the 45th Batch and therefore, in terms of para 3(vi) read with para 3 (vii) of the Standing Order, his seniority was rightly fixed at the top of the 45th Batch. Further, the petitioner's plea that the Standing Order No. 01/2009 dated 12.01.2009 is liable to be ignored is also misplaced as the said Standing Order which lays down the guidelines for fixation of the inter se seniority of the DAGOs in the CRPF has been issued in consonance with the Rules. This Standing Order has been relied upon by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in SA no. 73/2024 titled 'Union of India v. Prashant Kumar Rai & Ors', wherein the Division Bench while allowing the appeal filed by the Union of India, accepted the respondents' plea that a candidate who had missed the training for more than thirty days on account of suffering from Tuberculosis would forfeit his seniority and could be assigned seniority only with the Batch with which he completed training.
14. He submits that the decision in S.R. Arun kumar (supra) relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case where this Court found that even though the petitioner could be easily relegated to the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9076/2020 Page 7 of 15 By:SAURABH RAWAT Signing Date:20.09.2024 10:19:39 next sub-batch of his original batch, he was wrongly relegated to the next batch and therefore, directed that he be granted his due seniority with his original batch. In the present case, the petitioner was undergoing training as a part of the 44 (C) Batch, i.e, the last sub-batch of the 44th Batch of DAGO, and therefore, could be relegated only to the next Batch. He, therefore, contends that the seniority of the petitioner was rightly determined at the top of the 45th Batch with which he completed his training and prays that the writ petition be dismissed.
15. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we may begin by dealing with the two preliminary objections raised by the respondents. As noted hereinabove, the respondents have first sought to oppose the petition on the ground of delay and laches by urging that though the impugned gradation list was issued in 2015, the present petition has been filed in 2020. The petitioner has, on the other hand, urged that it was only after he was granted the benefit of Senior Time Scale on 14.03.2017 along with his batchmates from his original Batch i.e. the 44 th Batch, that he realised that his service was being counted from 25.03.2013 itself and it is only then that he submitted a representation on 04.02.2019 for fixation of his seniority at par with his batchmates of the 44th Batch. This representation was rejected on 01.09.2020, immediately whereafter he approached this Court by way of the present petition. In our considered view, once the respondents do not deny that they have extended the benefit of Senior Time Scale to the petitioner on 25.03.2017 at par with his batchmates from the 44th Batch, the petitioner's explanation that he was awaiting disposal of his representation submitted on 04.02.2019 before approaching the Court deserves to be accepted. Even otherwise, the delay in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9076/2020 Page 8 of 15 By:SAURABH RAWAT Signing Date:20.09.2024 10:19:39 approaching the Court is not so gross so as to warrant dismissal of the writ petition at this belated stage after the same has remained pending adjudication for the last four years.
16. We may now deal with the respondents' second objection that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non impleadment of persons whose seniority is likely to be affected in case, the petitioner's seniority is restored with that of his batchmates. In support of this plea, learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the decision Madan Mohan Joshi (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, urged that since he is not claiming seniority over any particular individual but is only claiming seniority with his batchmates with whom he was treated at par for grant of benefit of Senior Time Scale, there was no requirement of impleading any individual officer. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the parties on this aspect, we find merit in the petitioner's plea.
17. From the factual matrix noted hereinabove, it is evident that the petitioner has not raised any grievance against the seniority position assigned to any individual but is only aggrieved by the manner in which he has been placed in the 45th Batch. No doubt, in a case where seniority is claimed over any individual or group of individuals, it would be necessary for the petitioner therein to implead those employees who are likely to be affected by the outcome of the petition. In the present case, no such relief is being sought by the petitioner and therefore, we do not find any merit in the respondents' plea that the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of parties.
18. In fact, para 18 of the decision in Madan Mohan Joshi (supra) relied Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9076/2020 Page 9 of 15 By:SAURABH RAWAT Signing Date:20.09.2024 10:19:39 upon by the respondents itself shows that there was no requirement for the petitioner to implead any employee in the present writ petition. The observations of the Apex Court as contained in para 18 read as under:-
18. Reliance placed on A. Janardhana [(1983) 3 SCC 601 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 467] by Mr Garg, in our opinion, is misplaced. Therein, no relief was claimed against any individual. The only relief which was claimed therein was against the Union of India. The question which was raised therein was a question of interpretation. It was in the aforementioned situation, this Court held that all the employees were not required to be impleaded as a party.
In that case, the case of direct recruits has not gone unrepresented. It was stated : (SCC pp. 625-26, para 36) "36. ... In this case, the appellant does not claim seniority over any particular individual in the background of any particular fact controverted by that person against whom the claim is made. The contention is that criteria adopted by the Union Government in drawing up the impugned seniority list are invalid and illegal and the relief is claimed against the Union Government restraining it from upsetting or quashing the already drawn up valid list and for quashing the impugned seniority list. Thus, the relief is claimed against the Union Government and not against any particular individual. In this background, we consider it unnecessary to have all direct recruits to be impleaded as respondents."
19. Now coming to the merit of the petitioner's claim, we may first note the facts on which the parties are not at variance. We find that the fact that the petitioner was selected as a part of the 44 th Batch of DAGO and had joined the basic training on 24.03.2013, i.e, the date on which the training Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9076/2020 Page 10 of 15 By:SAURABH RAWAT Signing Date:20.09.2024 10:19:39 for the Batch commenced, is undisputed. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner had already completed three months training on 03.07.2013, when he was compelled to discontinue the same on account of the knee injury suffered by him during training at Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. In fact, the respondents also admit that the CoI convened to examine the circumstances under which the petitioner suffered the injury, specifically opined that the same was during bona fide government duty as also that due to his medical condition, he must be relegated to the next Batch for training. The parties are also ad idem on the fact that the petitioner has been granted the benefit of Senior Time Scale by reckoning his four year service from the date he joined training with the 44th Batch.
20. Thus, what emerges is that while the respondents do not deny that the petitioner was relegated to the 45th Batch of training due to an injury suffered by him while discharging bona fide government duty, they have, by placing reliance on para 3(vi) of the Standing Order No.01/2009 urged that since the petitioner missed training for more than thirty days, his seniority had to be forfeited. The petitioner, on the other hand, has by relying on Rule 8(b)(ii) of the CRPF Rules, urged that his seniority which was required to be fixed on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained by him in the selection process and the passing out examination of the training after the basic training, could not be, on the basis of mere executive instructions contained in Standing Order No.01/2009, downgraded. The petitioner has also urged that the provision for forfeiture of seniority as contained in para 3 (vi) of the Standing Order No.01/2009 would apply only in a situation where a candidate does not join training or misses training of his own volition.
21. In order to appreciate this plea of the parties, it would be apposite to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9076/2020 Page 11 of 15 By:SAURABH RAWAT Signing Date:20.09.2024 10:19:39 first refer to Rule 8(b)(ii) of the CRPF Rules, which reads as under:-
(ii) The inter se seniority of direct recruits to the Central Reserve Police Force in the rank of Company Commander or Quarter Master or Assistant Principal, Central Training College, shall be determined in accordance with the aggregate marks obtained by them before the selection board and at the passing out examinations conducted after their basic training at the Central Reserve Police Force, Internal Security Academy.
An officer promoted locally in the Central Reserve Police Force or from a Subordinate Police Service in the State shall take rank immediately below the entire batch of direct recruits, any officer of which may have been appointed on the same date, the inter se seniority between local promotes from the States shall be determined with reference to their dates of birth.
22. We, however, find that though the respondents do not deny that Rule 8(b)(ii) lays down the basic guideline for fixation of seniority, their plea is that this Rule has to be read in consonance with the Standing Order No.01/2009. We may, therefore, note para 3 (vi) & (vii) of the said Standing Order hereinbelow on which heavy reliance has been placed by the respondents.
3(vi) Similarly, a trainee Officer who misses the training for more than 30 days for any reason shall forfeit his claim to inter se seniority amongst that batch. His inclusion in the subsequent batch on account of failure, relegation, absence etc., shall depend on the recommendation of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9076/2020 Page 12 of 15 By:SAURABH RAWAT Signing Date:20.09.2024 10:19:39 Principal of the Academy.
3(vii) The principle as stipulated vide Paras (i) (ii) & (iii) above in respect of candidates selected through UPSC shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to such candidates who could not join the training programme having been declared temporary unfit/unfit and are declared fit subsequently by a re medical/review medical board as well to such trainees who were relegated from the previous batch on medical grounds. Such candidates shall be permitted to join or rejoin the subsequent batch of training, as the case may be, only if their fitness is certified by the competent medical authority of the Force and such certificate not being more than an year old.
23. From a cumulative reading of the aforementioned paras 3 (vi) & (vii) of the Standing Order No.01/2009, what clearly emerges is that the provision for forfeiture of seniority of an officer who misses training for more than thirty days, is meant to apply to only those candidates who wilfully miss training. The same cannot be read to include officers who, while undergoing training, suffer injuries and that too while performing bona fide government duties. The respondents have vehemently, urged that the use of the words 'for any reason' in para 3(vi) of the Standing Order would also include cases where the ongoing training is cut short due to injuries suffered during training. We are, however, unable to agree as we are of the considered opinion that a candidate who bona fidely joins training but suffers injury during training cannot be penalised for being relegated to the next training batch on account of his inability to continue with the training due to his temporary medical issues.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9076/2020 Page 13 of 15 By:SAURABH RAWAT Signing Date:20.09.2024 10:19:3924. In our view, merely because the petitioner was relegated to the 45th Batch of training for reasons beyond his control, could not be a ground to deny him of his due seniority or service w.e.f. 25.03.2013 as per Rule 8(b)(ii). The very fact that the respondents themselves had extended the benefit of Senior Time Scale to the petitioner by taking into account his service w.e.f. 25.03.2013 in itself shows that they are aware that the petitioner's service has to be reckoned w.e.f. the date of his joining the training centre.
25. We have also considered the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Prashant Kumar Rai (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the respondents, but are of the considered view that the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioner therein could not undergo training with his original batch because of tuberculosis in his right cervical and therefore, had to be relegated to the next batch, whereas the petitioner in the present case was relegated to the 45th Batch only on account of an injury, which injury, the CoI has, categorically found, he suffered while performing bona fide government service. Thus, unlike the petitioner in the present case, the reasons for the petitioner in Prashant Kumar Rai (supra) for not being able to complete the training with his batch had no connection with government duty. Furthermore, we find that a challenge to the decision in Prashant Kumar Rai (supra) is already pending adjudication by way of SLP (C) no. 20323/2024 before the Apex Court.
26. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the petition deserves to succeed. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed by setting aside the impugned signal and order dated 01.09.2020 and 06.10.2020 respectively.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9076/2020 Page 14 of 15 By:SAURABH RAWAT Signing Date:20.09.2024 10:19:39Further, the respondents are directed to re-fix, within 4 weeks, the seniority of the petitioner, as per his merit position with the 44th Batch of DAGOs and accordingly, grant him notional pay fixation at par with his batchmates.
(REKHA PALLI) JUDGE (SHALINDER KAUR) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 18, 2024 kk Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9076/2020 Page 15 of 15 By:SAURABH RAWAT Signing Date:20.09.2024 10:19:39