Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 by an Inspector/GD in the Central Reserve Police Force (‘CRPF’) for quashing orders dated 19-04-2023, 25-04-2022, and 09-08-2022 and to direct the respondents to promote him to the rank of Assistant Commandant with seniority at par with his batchmates, a Division Bench of Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur*, JJ. set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondents to grant retrospective seniority to the Inspector along with all the consequential benefits.
Background
In 2003, the Inspector appeared in the examination for the post of Sub-Inspector in the Central Paramilitary Organization (‘CPO’) as had been advertised by the Staff Selection Committee (‘SSC’) and successfully cleared the written exam. However, he was declared medically unfit in the Physical Efficiency Test (‘PET’) in March, 2004. Thereafter, he opted to be re-examined before the Review Medical Board which he successfully cleared in December, 2004 and was appointed as a SI in May, 2005 and was included in the 2005 batch.
A writ petition was preferred before this Court wherein similarly placed Force personnel were claiming seniority at par with their batchmates and the Court, vide order dated 13-04-2021, disposed of the petition and directed that the said petition must be treated as a representation to the Director General (‘DG’), CRPF (respondent 2). Subsequently, the DG passed an order dated 03-09-2021 through which the seniority of the personnel as SI/GD was fixed as 30-04-2004.
After the seniority of the petitioner was re-fixed as SI/GD, a Board of Directors was constituted to reassign the seniority of the petitioner. The said Board found the petitioner fit for being mentioned in the Special Approved List and thus, the Office of the Inspector General, Srinagar Sector, passed an order dated 04-02-2022. The DG, vide impugned order dated 25-04-2022, issued a list whereby the seniority of all the SI/GD for the rank of Inspector was re-fixed, but the petitioner’s seniority as Inspector/GD was maintained as on 17-02-2010.
Vide impugned order dated 09-08-2022, a list was issued by the Deputy Inspector General (‘DIG’) whereby the eligible Inspectors/GD, whose seniority was previously re-fixed in the aforesaid manner, were notionally promoted to the rank of Assistant Commandant. The petitioner claimed that the names which found mention on the list were junior to him.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition for which the Court directed the respondents to treat the petition as a representation and to decide the same within four weeks. This representation rejected vide impugned order dated 19-04-2023 because of which the petitioner did not qualify for the Platoon Commander (P.C.) Refresher Courses on medical grounds and lost his seniority with reference to these courses. Dissatisfied with the said impugned orders, the petitioner approached the Court.
Analysis and Decision
The Court perused the impugned order dated 19-04-2023 passed by the DG, CRPF wherein the respondents had contended that the petitioner lagged behind his batchmates and lost seniority as he was not detailed in the promotional courses, which he subsequently qualified, and was accordingly, promoted.
The Court took note of the Standing Order dated 15-12-2008 issued by the DG and said that it was evident that medical category SHAPE-I was an essential condition for promotion of all combatised personnel in all groups, ranks, and cadres in the Central Armed Police Forces and that in case a personnel is temporarily unfit, he/she would be considered for promotion after regaining the same and his/her seniority would be protected.
The Court said that the petitioner was not given any reason for being detailed in the P.C. Refresher Courses despite being in SHAPE-I medical category and found that the submissions of the respondents were devoid of any cogent reason.
However, the Court noted that the parties were in agreement that the petitioner had regained medical category SHAPE-I on 04-07-2009 and thus, said that in light of the Standing Order, the respondents could not have denied the petitioner benefit of seniority in the rank of Inspector with effect from 06-06-2008, when his batchmates were given such seniority.
The Court said that the petitioner was also entitled to be promoted to the rank of Assistant Commandant and to retain his seniority and that he was justified in urging that he had been wrongly deprived of the promotion.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondents to grant retrospective seniority to the petitioner as Inspector/GD below his immediate senior along with notional pay fixation. It was also said that the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits, including consideration for promotion to the higher rank of Assistant Commandant to the date i.e. 09-08-2022 when his batchmates were promoted.
Lastly, the Court said that the petitioner would not be entitled to back wages but all other consequential benefits including seniority and pay fixation and directed the competent authority of the respondents to pass the necessary orders within 12 weeks.
[M. Samundra Singh v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7302, Decided on 18-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — Advocate Abhay Kumar Bhargava, Advocate Satyarth Sinha
For Respondents — SPC Garima Sachdeva, Advocate Divyanshi Maurya
