Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.41 seconds)
Satya Pal Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 30 September, 1999 cites

Smt. Sushila Srivastava And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 16 November, 1998

8. There can be no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The core question for determination is whether the petitioners are entitled, as of right, to out of turn promotion on the basis of their participation with other A.W.C. 207 members of the raiding parly in the encounter, which culminated in the annihilation of the notorious criminal, Amar Pal. In my view, mere participation of the petitioners in the encounter would not furnish an indefeasible right to claim promotion out of turn. It is true that the petitioners did take part in the encounter as they were actively associated with the raiding party ; nevertheless, it is the subjective satisfaction of the departmental authorities to determine whether a particular employee who has been the member of the raiding party is entitled to out of turn promotion or not. Such satisfaction is to be arrived at with reference to the role assigned to the various members of the raiding party and the valour and courage exhibited by them and their situation and location at the crucial time. Some members are in the proximity and in the range of firing, while some are at considerable distance from other members to keep vigil and their participation may not be as dangerous and hazardous as it was in respect of the members who were in the closest possible proximity of the desperado who was sought to be apprehended. To quote an example, in a war. hundreds of soldiers, with their Commanding Officer and other officers take cudgels with the enemy and move together. They are all contributing their mite to challenge the enemy side. The participation of each one of the soldiers and officers is alike. If gallantry award is given to the head, who was in the command or to those soldiers who were in proximity, other members cannot, as a matter of right, claim that they should also be treated in the same manner. There has, of necessity, to be a distinction in the selection of the awardees. The award would lose its importance and significance if it is given to every one of the members in the normal course. In the instant case, it has come on record that the notorious criminal died on account of the fires shot by respondent Nos. 6 to 8 who, it appears were in the closest possible proximity of Amar Pal. Originally, the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 were charged of the duty to apprehend Amar Pal dead or alive. The petitioners were detailed to join the party by way of re-enforcement. It is not that the distinctive services rendered by the petitioner have gone unnoticed and unrecognised. They have been Issued certificate of appreciation by the departmental authorities and have also been paid cash award. The two petitioners who are Sub-Inspectors, have been paid Rs. 4.000 each while the other two Constable-petitioners were paid Rs. 2.250 each. This should have been an endearing solace to the petitioners as their services have been duly recognised and appreciated by the departmental authorities.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 10 - O P Garg - Full Document
1