The central legal point established in the judgment is the principle of non-discrimination in granting ad-hoc promotion, emphasizing the need for consistency in applying the provisions of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980.

V.KAMESWAR RAO, J. (Oral)

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated March 12, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, in short), Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application (OA) No. 2698/2012, whereby the OA filed by the respondent herein, inter alia, seeking ad-hoc promotion on out of turn basis to the post of Inspector under Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980 from the date when SI Dharmender Kumar was allowed the same.

2. Some of the facts, which are relevant to decide the issue which falls for our consideration in this writ petition are, that the respondent was appointed as Inspector (Executive) on February 10, 1994. On December 30, 2004, the respondent along with his team members namely SI Dharmender Kumar, SI Mehtab Singh and HC Ajit had led a successful operation in which, dreaded gangster Krishan Pehalwan of gang Surender @ Sunder, carrying cash reward of Rs. 25,000/- on his arrest from Haryana Police, was pinned down in an encounter after a shoot out at outer gate, Sugar Mill, Panipat, Haryana. Two of his associates Pradeep and Ranbir were also apprehended. During the shoot out, SI Mehtab Singh sustained bullet injuries and later succumbed to his injuries. The Incentive Committee constituted for this purpose, after going through the facts, considered the cases of the respondent and SI Dharmender Kumar, and finally, in the meeting held on December 04, 2006, recommended the names of the respondent and SI Dharmender Kumar for out of turn promotion to the rank of Inspector. The said recommendations were placed before the then Commissioner of Police, who after going through the same, had approved the same on December 05, 2006. It appears that SI Dharmener Kumar and the respondent could not be given promotion due to non-availability of earmarked vacancies for the purpose.

3. It is on record that the respondent had got promoted to the rank of Inspector on his own turn along with his batch mates on January 13, 2009. It is also noted that a fresh Incentive Committee was constituted to review the earlier decisions of the earlier Commissioners. The new Committee recommended ‘Asadharan Karya Puraskar’(AKP) to SI Dharmender Kumar. Insofar as the respondent is concerned, it did not recommend any incentives.

4. SI Dharmender Kumar challenged the decision of the petitioners granting him AKP by filing OA No. 557/2011 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide its order dated September 05, 2011 allowed the Original Application by relying upon its own judgment in the case of HC Sukhbir Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. in OA No. 2304/2010.

5. In Sukhbir Singh’s case (supra), the Tribunal had found the action of the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary to a high degree and directed the petitioners to grant to the applicant in that OA, one time promotion as SI with effect from October 31, 2005. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal in the Original Application filed by SI Dharmender Kumar, the petitioners issued order dated October 14, 2011 whereby SI Dharmender Kumar was granted out of turn promotion to the rank of Inspector with effect from September 14, 2007.

6. Finding that SI Dharender Kumar has been granted benefit of out of turn promotion, the respondent filed a representation dated January 03, 2012, calling upon the petitioners to grant him out of turn promotion as has been given to SI Dhramender, his team mate.

7. Suffice to state that the representation was considered but the request could not be acceded to and accordingly, the respondent was informed by the petitioners vide communication dated May 07, 2012 about the decision. It is this order which was challenged by the respondent by filing the Original Application No. 2698/2012 before the Tribunal, which culminated in the impugned order dated March 12, 2013, a reference of which has already been given above.

8. Ms. Zubeda Begum, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would s