Union Of India Through Its Secretary ... vs Hc (Exe.) Vinod Kumar & Ors on 11 May, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Union Of India Through Its Secretary ... vs Hc (Exe.) Vinod Kumar & Ors on 11 May, 2026

Bench: C. Hari Shankar

                  $~42
                  *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                  +         W.P.(C) 6343/2026 & CM APPL. 31211/2026, CM APPL.
                            31212/2026, CM APPL. 31213/2026

                            UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
                            MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS.           .....Petitioners
                                          Through: Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber,
                                          CGSC, Mr. Vinay Singh Bist, Ms.
                                          Chanchala Tiwari, Ms. Kirti Bhardwaj and
                                          Mr. Vaibhav Dayma, Advs.

                                                          versus

                            HC (EXE.) VINOD KUMAR & ORS.         .....Respondents
                                           Through: Mr. Sourabh Ahuja, Advs.

                            CORAM:
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
                                                          ORDER

% 11.05.2026 CM APPL. 31212/2026 (Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 31213/2026 (permission to file lengthy synopsis)

3. For the reasons stated therein, the petitioner is permitted to file lengthy synopsis.

4. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 6343/2026 Page 1 of 11

This is a digitally signed order.

5. This writ petition is directed against judgment dated 10 December 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 3706/2024.

6. Mr. Tamber commenced his submission by stating that the judgment dated 18 November 2025 passed by the Tribunal in OA 3765/2023, on which the impugned judgment relies, is subject matter of challenge before this Court in WP (C) 3558/2026 in which notice stands issued and stay granted. He, therefore, exhorts this Court to do likewise in the present case.

7. For reasons which would become apparent hereinafter, we are not inclined to agree with Mr. Tamber's suggestion. Nonetheless, we do deem it appropriate, at this stage, to reproduce the order dated 19 March 2026 passed by the coordinate Bench in WP (C) 3558/2026:

"4. Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner challenges the correctness of the order dated 18.11.2025 (hereafter 'impugned order'), passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No. 3765/2023 (along with connected O.A.s).

5. Learned counsel representing the Petitioner inter alia contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in issuing direction to the Petitioner to consider the case of the Respondent for out of turn promotion for the year 2022 despite the fact that the Petitioner's case was in fact considered in the year 2023.

6. He submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in returning a finding that there was delay in considering the Respondent's case for out of turn promotion on account of delay in holding meeting of the Incentive Committee.

1 "the Tribunal" hereinafter W.P.(C) 6343/2026 Page 2 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/05/2026 at 21:15:26

7. Issue notice of motion for 24.08.2026.

8. Mr. Sourabh Ahuja, learned counsel representing the Respondent accepts notice and prays for some time to file reply.

9. In the meantime, the operation and effect of the impugned order shall remain stayed."

8. Clearly, the only consideration which has weighed with the Coordinate Bench in passing the order dated 19 March 2026 is the issue of whether the entitlement of the respondent to out of turn promotion in that case ought to have been considered in 2022 or was rightly considered only in 2023.

9. Apart from that, there are several features of this case which are extremely disquieting, to say the least.

10. The respondent was appointed as a Constable on 22 January 2003. He was promoted as Head Constable on 6 June 2013. Between 17 July 2021 and 4 April 2022, the respondent apprehended 82 Proclaimed Offenders2. Standing Order No. L & O/17/20223 dated 8 February 2022, which deals with incentive out of turn promotion4 for persons who arrest POs, provides thus:

"It has been noticed that a number of subordinate officers have taken keen interest in arresting Proclaimed Offenders. In order to recognize their hard work and commitment to duty it was decided to consider them for the grant of following incentives, in addition to the rewards prescribed under Delhi Police (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1980. However, the following norms have been set up in order to have a uniform policy:-

2 "POs" hereinafter 3 "SO" hereinafter 4 "OTP" hereinafter W.P.(C) 6343/2026 Page 3 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/05/2026 at 21:15:26 I. OUT OF TURN PROMOTION Constable/Head Constable who physically apprehends 80 PO's (40 or more PO's involved in 'A' category crimes and the remaining Pos of 'B' category wherein the crimes are IPC offences only) within a period of one year will be considered for the grant of out of turn promotion subject to the availability of vacancies of OTP (Out of turn Promotion) Quota in that year.

II. ASADHARAN KARYA PURASKAR Asadharan Karya Puraskar shall be granted to Constables/Head Constables who physically apprehend 75 PO's (15 or more PO's involved in 'A' category crimes and the remaining PO's of 'B' category wherein the crimes are IPC offences only) in two consecutive years.

The proclaimed offenders arrested on production warrant or traced as dead will not be considered in the purview of arrest of PO's for the grant of OTP/AKP. Similarly, if any accused, declared a P.O. in a number of cases, is arrested, he will be counted as one P.O. for the grant of OTP/AKP and the credit for the arrest of the P.O. would go only to the officer/men who actually arrested him in the first instance.

(1) The classification of 'A' category crimes under

1.P.C. sections and other Acts are as under-

                                              1.) Dacoity                   395 & 396-IPC
                                              2) Murder                     302-1PC
                                              3) Attempt to murder          307-IPC
                                              4) Robbery                    392 to 394-1PC
                                              5) Riot                       147 to 149-1PC
                                              6) Kidnapping for ransom      364 A-IPC
                                              7) Rape                 376 & 376(a) to 376(g) IPC
                                              8) Snatching                  356/379-IPC
                                              9) Burglary             454, 457/380-IPC, 460-1PC
                                              10) Auto lifting              379-IPC
                                              11) Recovery of Narcotic      NDPS Act
                                              12) POCSO Cases
                                              13) Cases under Juvenile Justice Act
                                              14) Cheating/fraud cases
                                              15) Cyber Crime cases.
                                              16) IT ACT Cases.

                                      (ii)      The 'B' category crimes shall be IPC offences only.

(iii) Besides, with a view to encourage the police personnel to arrest the proclaimed offenders absconding for W.P.(C) 6343/2026 Page 4 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/05/2026 at 21:15:26 long, special weightage shall be given to arrest such proclaimed offenders. Such weightage will be on the basis of intervals between PO declaration date and the date of arrest which is as follows-

Less than five years____ will be considered equivalent to 1 PO Five to 10 years ____will be considered equivalent to 2 PO More than 10 years ____will be considered equivalent to 3 PO In addition, the following criteria will normally be observed while considering an individual for the grant of OTP/AKP:-

(a) The individual should not have received any major penalty during the previous 3 years or censure during the last 6 months.

(b) He should not have been convicted by a court for an offence involving moral turpitude or lack of integrity.

(c) He should not have any adverse ACR during the last 3 years.

(d) His name should not have been in the Secret List of persons of doubtful integrity during the last 3 years.

(e) No DE/PE/Crl. Case/Vigilance enquiry/complaint case should be pending against him."

11. It is not in dispute that, out of the 82 POs who were apprehended by the respondent between 17 July 2021 and 4 April 2022, 42 were accused of having committed offences falling within category 'A' and 40 were accused of having committed offences falling within category 'B'. As such, the respondent amply satisfied the standard of apprehension of 80 POs, 40 under category 'A' and 40 under category 'B', envisaged in the SO for grant of OTP.

12. The respondent's case was actually recommended for grant of OTP on 5 May 2022 by the SHO of PS Rajouri Garden.

W.P.(C) 6343/2026 Page 5 of 11

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/05/2026 at 21:15:26

13. It is also not in dispute that, ordinarily, an Incentive Committee5 meets once every year to consider cases of police personnel for grant of OTP. However, no IC met during the whole of 2022.

14. Mr. Tamber, learned CGSC for the petitioners, submits that one of the members of the IC was unwell and the G20 Summit was taking place and, therefore, the IC could not meet. Besides the fact that the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal does not say so, we do not understand why the mere illness of one member of the committee and the G20 summit was a hurdle in the IC assembling for the entire year of 2022.

15. The IC ultimately met on 9 November 2023. According to the submissions made before the Tribunal, in the said meeting, the committee considered the citations put up before it regarding candidates who were eligible for OTP both for the year 2022 and 2023. However, we may note that, in ground M in the present writ petition, it has been averred thus:

"M. BECAUSE the Ld. Tribunal while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate the fact since the incentive committee couldn't be held in 2022, thus the OTP quota for the year 2022 wasn't utilized by the Department/ Competent authority. Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980 doesn't envisage the carrying forward of the said vacancies and accordingly the said quota was filled by regular vacancy in general order of seniority. The impugned order fails to consider the same and to that extent is liable to be set aside because at this stage no vacancy for the year 2022 is available and thus it is not possible to grant OTP at this stage to anyone with retrospective effect."

16. Irrespective of whether the committee which met on 9 5 "IC" hereinafter W.P.(C) 6343/2026 Page 6 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/05/2026 at 21:15:26 November 2023 did, or did not, consider the candidates recommended for OTP in 2022 or not, a reading of Ground M in the writ petition reveals that no OTP was granted to any candidates who was recommended for the year 2022 and, rather, the vacancies for that year were filled in regular course in order of seniority. As to what entitled the petitioners to divert vacancies which were earmarked for OTP for the year 2022, we are entirely unaware. Mr Tamber, too, submits that he would have to take instructions on this.

17. What seriously disturbs us is, however, the fact that the respondent, having amply satisfied the criterion envisaged by the SO of the Delhi Police, for OTP, was found unfit for grant of OTP not only by the IC which met on 9 November 2023, but further by subsequent ICs which met on 20 December 2024, 4 March 2025 and 8 April 2025. If this is to be permitted, it might result in consigning to oblivion the SO dated 8 February 2022 of the Delhi Police and the standard of apprehending of 80 POs envisaged therein as a criterion to entitled a candidate for OTP.

18. It was in these circumstances that the respondent petitioned the Tribunal, aggrieved by the fact that he had not been granted OTP whereas others who had performed what, according to the petitioners, constituted "isolated act of gallantry", were granted OTP.

19. The Tribunal has not found favour with the explanation professed by the petitioners for rejecting the respondent and selecting others for OTP. In arriving at its decision, the Tribunal has relied on its earlier order dated 18 November 2025 in OA 3765/2023.

W.P.(C) 6343/2026 Page 7 of 11

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/05/2026 at 21:15:26

20. Though it is true that the order dated 18 November 2025 stands stayed by a coordinate Bench of this Court by the order dated 19 March 2026 in WP (C) 3558/2026, reproduced towards the commencement of this order, we are not inclined to follow that course in the present case.

21. The fact that the IC did not meet in 2022 and considered the respondent's case only towards the end of 2023 is but one of the factors which concerns us. More significantly, Ground M in the writ petition indicates that the OTP marked vacancies for 2022 were actually diverted to regular category and OTPs were granted only to persons whose names were forwarded for 2023. Moreover, we find no legitimate basis either in the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal as to why the IC did not meet for the whole of 2022. Even if it were to be assumed that they could not meet for any reason, the IC, and as when it met, ought to have considered year-wise OTP marked vacancies for 2022 and 2023.

22. It was not the case of the petitioners before the Tribunal that there were persons who apprehended a larger number of POs and who were therefore found to be more deserving than the respondent for grant of OTP. Rather, the persons who were granted OTP had apparently performed isolated acts of gallantry. We do not understand how apprehending of 82 POs in one year would not constitute an act of gallantry.

23. Mr. Tamber has also placed reliance on the judgment of the W.P.(C) 6343/2026 Page 8 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.

"As observed hereinabove, out-of-turn promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right and only in a case where the case falls within the parameters of Regulation 70A, out-of-turn promotion can be granted. Under the circumstances, both, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have erred in setting aside the report of the Committee and have materially erred in directing the State to grant out-of-turn promotion. The Division Bench of the High Court has observed that the learned Single Judge found the report of the Committee arbitrary. We fail to appreciate how the report can be said to be arbitrary when the Committee considered in detail all the parameters for out-of-turn promotion envisaged under Regulation 70A. Once, the Committee constituted takes a conscious decision objectively, thereafter, the Court would not be justified in interfering with such a decision unless it is found to be palpably arbitrary and/or perverse. The report submitted by the Committee in the present case cannot be said to be palpably arbitrary and/or perverse. Cogent reasons have been given by the Committee on every aspect, more particularly, Regulation 70A."

24. There can be no cavil with the proposition that grant of OTP is not a matter of right. However, at the same time, the petitioners cannot act arbitrarily in granting OTP, following a pick and choose policy. The Supreme Court, in Sanjay Shukla itself, has noted that where the manner in which the OTP is granted is ex facie arbitrary or perverse, a case for interference is made out. In the present case, the cumulative circumstances that we have noted above, viz.,

(i) that no IC met for the whole of 2022,

(ii) the reasons for this, i.e. that one of the members was unwell and the G20 Summit took place in November, cannot constitute a basis for not convening the committee for the whole year, 6 Judgment dated 27 March 2023 in SLP(C) 1040/2021 W.P.(C) 6343/2026 Page 9 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/05/2026 at 21:15:26

(iii) the OTP marked vacancies for 2022 were apparently diverted to the regular vacancies and were not filled by candidates who had been recommended for OTP in 2022,

(iv) the only criterion envisaged by SO dated 8 February 2022 for grant of OTP was apprehending of POs, with 40 POs accused of category-A offences and 40 POs accused of category-B offense having been set as a standard,

(v) the respondent amply satisfied the said criterion having apprehended as many as 82 POs between 17 July 2021 and 4 April 2022 and

(vi) it is not the case of the petitioners even before the Tribunal that the persons who were granted OTP had apprehended a larger number of POs, we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal prima facie does not call for any interference. However, solely for the reason that notice stands issued by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 19 March 2026 in WP(C) 3558/2026, we reluctantly issue notice in this writ petition.

25. Notice is accepted on behalf of respondent by Mr. Sourabh Ahuja.

26. Instead of passing any order on the stay application, we deem it appropriate, given the nature of the dispute, to decide the writ petition expeditiously.

27. Mr. Sourabh Ahuja forfeits his right to counter affidavit.

28. List the writ petition for disposal on 26 May 2026 in the W.P.(C) 6343/2026 Page 10 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.

29. Both sides are permitted to place on record short notes of their respective written submissions not exceeding four pages each after exchanging copies with each other at least a week in advance of the next date of hearing, along with duly indexed compilation of any judicial authorities on which they may seek to place reliance at least 48 hours in advance of the next date of hearing.

30. On the next date of hearing, the petitioners shall also produce the records of the IC which met on 9 November 2023, so that we are aware of the exact proceedings which took place. However, we make it clear that the hearing of this petition would not be deferred awaiting the availability of the record.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

MAY 11, 2026 dsn W.P.(C) 6343/2026 Page 11 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/05/2026 at 21:15:26

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders