Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Prasad Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 4 December, 2013
1
Rajendra Prasad Mishra Vs. State of M. P. and others.
W. P. No. 14865/11
4/12/13
Shri Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S. P. Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.
Petitioner feels aggrieved by non-grant of promotion to
him under Rule 70 of the Police Regulation on the ground
that he is entitled to the said promotion in view of his
extraordinary act in apprehending certain renowned dacoits.
It is said that even though the Superintendent of Police,
Distt. Satna has recommended for out of turn promotion to
the petitioner and certain persons who accompanied the
petitioner have been granted out for turn promotion but
petitioner has been denied similar consideration.
Facts go to show that in the year 2005, petitioner was
posted as Sub Inspector/Station House Officer in police station Majhgowa, Distt. Satna. On 29.09.05 at about 12 P. M. , an information was received with regard to activities of about 35-40 dacoits in village Pukharwar under the jurisdiction of the petitioner. It is said that a police party in the command of the petitioner and various other police personnel participated in an encounter taken against the dacoits and in the encounter, three renowned dacoits were killed. Based on the encounter conducted, it is said that an enquiry is conducted by the S. D. O. , Majgawa, Distt. Satna and a report was submitted about the enquiry vide Annexure P-2 dated 6/03/06 wherein acts of bravery of the petitioner and other employees were appreciated.
Based on the same, the Superintendent of Police, Distt. Satna submitted a report and recommended for grant of out of 2 Rajendra Prasad Mishra Vs. State of M. P. and others.
turn promotion to more than 9 persons.
The report of the Superintendent of Police is filed as Annexure P-3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in his case, only a gallantry award has been recommended by the Inspector General whereas in the case of other employees, out of turn promotion has been granted. Seeking parity and grant of out of turn promotion at par with the persons who have been granted the said promotion vide order Annexure P-5 dated 13/07/06, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
It is pointed out by Shri Sandeep Singh that Head Constable Ramvilas Tripathi, Constables Bhaiyalal, Vijay Kumar Pal, Munnalal, Tilbahadur and Shrilal Raghuwanshi have been granted out of turn promotion by the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh but in the case of the petitioner even though the recommendations have been made by the Superintendent of Police but no action has been taken.
Respondents have filed the reply and it is stated that the case of the petitioner was considered but the competent authority namely the Director General of Police only directed for grant of Gallantry award to the petitioner and there was no direction to grant him out of turn promotion and, therefore, no action was taken.
Shri Sandeep Singh invites my attention to the judgment rendered by this Court under similar circumstances in the matter of grant of out of turn promotion filed as Annexures P-6 and P-7 and says that the claim of the petitioner should have been considered.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, it is clear that based on the acts of the 3 Rajendra Prasad Mishra Vs. State of M. P. and others.
petitioner in the matter, the Superintendent of Police vide Annexure P-3 recommended for grant of out of turn promotion to 9 persons. Out of 9 persons, 6 persons have been granted out of turn promotion vide Annexure P-5 but in the case of the petitioner, no decision is taken for grant of out of turn promotion.
Even though, the competent authority the Director General of Police has directed for grant of gallantry award to the petitioner vide Annexures R-1 and R-2 but there is no consideration of the case of the petitioner under Rule 70 of the Police Regulation and there is no comparison with the other similarly situated persons who have been granted promotion as is indicated hereinabove.
Petitioner having participated in the act of bravery and the Superintendent of Police having recommended for promotion, the competent authority, namely the Director General of Police was required to consider the case of the petitioner for out of turn promotion and take a decision on such consideration.
This having not been done it is thought appropriate to remand the matter back to the competent authority for reconsideration.
Accordingly, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with the relevant documents, respondent no. 2 the Director General of Police shall reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of out of turn promotion and after considering the recommendations made by the Superintendent of Police under Rule 70 of the Police Regulation, shall take a decision for grant of out of 4 Rajendra Prasad Mishra Vs. State of M. P. and others.
turn promotion to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
If found entitled, petitioner be also granted the same benefit of promotion retrospectively with effect from the date other similarly situated employees have been promoted as recommended by the Superintendent of Police vide Annexure P-3 dated 22/03/06.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. C. C. as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Vy/-