Back
High Court Of Delhi
J.S.VIRK - Appellant
Versus
R.D.PRADHAN - Respondent
Contempt Civil Petition 176 of 1986
Decided On : 04/02/1987
CRPF - Seniority dispute among Company Commanders - Petitioners, recruited from ex-army personnel, denied benefit of counting their army service in computing seniority - Petitioners approached court and obtained judgment in their favor - Respondents issued tentative seniority list and finalized the same - Petitioners promoted to ACs - Petitioners not satisfied with mere revision of seniority and wanted it to be followed up by promotions to AC-21cs and COs - Respondents reluctant to take this step as it would mean reversion of some of the officers already promoted - Court directed respondents to give promotions to eligible petitioners, draw up revised seniority list of ACs, give promotions to AC-21cs and deserving candidates to COs - Respondents issued orders reverting some of those who had earlier been appointed as AC-21cs, but those orders were not implemented - Court directed that whether promoted or not, petitioners who passed fitness test should be paid special pay attached to AC-21cs posts - Respondents took decision to upgrade certain posts on temporary basis to avoid actual rank reversion - Court examined context of decision and exact terms and meaning of decision - Court held that order of 18.6.1986 required promotion of 88 officers as AC-21cs on basis of seniority with screening test and conversion of these posts with incumbents thereof as COs (non-selection grade) - Court held that respondents failed to keep in view objective of not affecting morale, efficiency and discipline in CRPF - Court held that respondents proceeded correctly upto a stage but then interests of direct recruits dominated and threw to the back stage interests of ECO/sscos - Court held that respondents failed to hold scales even as between recruits from two sources and this defect should be set right - Court held that upgradation was specific step taken by administration in implementation of court's decision in CW 44/75 - Court held that it is not necessary to go into contentions regarding validity and correctness of selections made by review DPCs - Court held that petitioners, in pursuance of their success in writ petition, are, in all strictness, entitled to insist that effect of their revised seniority should be carried to its full length even if it should result in reversion of direct recruits who had become Commandants and DIGs on basis of wrong seniority - Court held that petitioners' acceptance of order dated 18.6.1986 is only of limited nature and this gesture of its acceptance should be understood in context that petitioners are willing to abide by effort of respondents to save reversion to direct recruits in position as Commandants, so long as their own position is not substantially jeopardized - Court held that there has been default on part of respondents in implementation of order dated 18.6.1986 and directed that judgment as clarified by court should now be implemented within three months.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, recruited from ex-army personnel, denied benefit of counting their army service in computing seniority. Petitioners approached court and obtained judgment in their favor. Respondents issued tentative seniority list and finalized the same. Petitioners promoted to ACs. Petitioners not satisfied with mere revision of seniority and wanted it to be followed up by promotions to AC-21cs and COs. Respondents reluctant to take this step as it would mean reversion of some of the officers already promoted. Court directed respondents to give promotions to eligible petitioners, draw up revised seniority list of ACs, give promotions to AC-21cs and deserving candidates to COs. Respondents issued orders reverting some of those who had earlier been appointed as AC-21cs, but those orders were not implemented. Court directed that whether promoted or not, petitioners who passed fitness test should be paid special pay attached to AC-21cs posts. Respondents took decision to upgrade certain posts on temporary basis to avoid actual rank reversion.
Finding of the Court:
Court held that order of 18.6.1986 required promotion of 88 officers as AC-21cs on basis of seniority with screening test and conversion of these posts with incumbents thereof as COs (non-selection grade). Court held that respondents failed to keep in view objective of not affecting morale, efficiency and discipline in CRPF. Court held that respondents proceeded correctly upto a stage but then interests of direct recruits dominated and threw to the back stage interests of ECO/sscos. Court held that respondents failed to hold scales even as between recruits from two sources and this defect should be set right. Court held that upgradation was specific step taken by administration in implementation of court's decision in CW 44/75. Court held that it is not necessary to go into contentions regarding validity and correctness of selections made by review DPCs. Court held that petitioners, in pursuance of their success in writ petition, are, in all strictness, entitled to insist that effect of their revised seniority should be carried to its full length even if it should result in reversion of direct recruits who had become Commandants and DIGs on basis of wrong seniority. Court held that petitioners' acceptance of order dated 18.6.1986 is only of limited nature and this gesture of its acceptance should be understood in context that petitioners are willing to abide by effort of respondents to save reversion to direct recruits in position as Commandants, so long as their own position is not substantially jeopardized. Court held that there has been default on part of respondents in implementation of order dated 18.6.1986 and directed that judgment as clarified by court should now be implemented within three months.
Issues: Whether respondents have failed to implement judgment of court in C.W. 44/75 dated 2.9.1985 and whether they should be directed to do so forthwith.
Ratio Decidendi: Order of 18.6.1986 required promotion of 88 officers as AC-21cs on basis of seniority with screening test and conversion of these posts with incumbents thereof as COs (non-selection grade).
Final Decision: Judgment as clarified by court should now be implemented within three months.
( 1 ) THE petitioners in CCP 82/86 and 176/86 came to this court with the complaint that the respondents have failed to implement the judgment of this court in C. W. 44/75 dated 2. 9. 1985 and that they should be directed to do so forthwith. There have been some developments since the filing of CCP 82/86 and, before referring to these developments and examining how well-founded the petitioners grievances are, it is necessary to give a brief resume of some salient facts of the controversy C. W. 44/45.
( 2 ) THE writ petition raised a question of seniority among Company Commanders in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF ). The hierarchy of posts in the service relevant for our consideration is as follows with Commandants at the top and Compnay Commanders at the bottom :
(I) Commandants (CO) (Non-Selection Grade) (ii) Assistant Commandants (Second-in-Command) I (AC-210 (iii) Assistant Commandants (AC) (iv) Company Commanders (CC) Of these the post at (ii) is not really a promotion post from the post at (iii) It only represents an appellation given to a few of the officers of category (iii) who pass a test of fitness by a screening committee and who get a special pay of Rs. 100. 00 Cos also are on the same pay scale as Assistant Commandants (1200-1700) and also get a special pay of Rs. 100. 00 like the AC-21cs but theyare of a higher rank than ACs since they wear on more star and promoted by selection from among the latter. Above (i), there is also a post of Commandants (Selection Grade) who are also on the same scale of pay and special pay They were, however, placed in command of batallions and receiver a compensatory pay of Rs. 100. 00 p. m.
( 3 ) NOW the dispute regarding seniority arose at the lowest level, viz. , that of CCs and was a simple one. Recruitments to this post was made from two sources-one, which can be briefly described as direct recruits (though it included recruits from the police and certain other para-military forces) and other, ex-army personnel (ECOs and SECOs and the the short question was whether persons recruited from the second source were entitled in computing their seniority, to count in the length of their service in the army. This benefit they were denied. They came to this court as early as 1975 for a solution to this problem and, after certain vicissitudes which the litigation suffered and which it is unnecessary to refer to now they were able to get, by a judgment of this court dated 2. 9. 1985, an affirmative answer to the above question. Now, the question is the follow-up action which the respondents are bound to take to implement the above judgment.
( 4 ) THE respondents initially filed a petition in the Supreme Court for leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment of 2. 9. 1985 but this was dismissed on 21. 1. 1986 Thereafter, on 26. 2. 1986 they issued a tentative seniority list of CCs on the basis of the judgment and finalised the same. The petitioner, naturally, were not satisfied merely with a revision of their seniority but wanted it to be followed up by promotions to the post of ACs which was, in consequence of the revision, due to them and which had earlier gone, on the basis of the previous mode of computing seniority, to the direct recuits. The respondents seemed reluctant to take this steps as it would mean reversion of some of the officers already promoted and this was done eventually only on 24. 9. 1986. But this was an inevitable logical consequence of our judgment as the earlier promotions were suject to the result of the writ petition and so, by an interim order dated 11. 8. 1986, we directed the respondents (a) to give promotions to such of the petitioners as were eligible for it in consequence of the revision of seniority at the level of CCs; (b) to draw up a revised seniority list of ACs after such promotions; (c) to give promotions in accordance with such seniority list to the post of AC-21cs; and (d) also give promotions to deserving candidates to
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
