Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAY BHANOT, J.
Ram Charan Singh (Force No. 937040966) - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And Others. - Respondents
Writ - A No. 31182 of 2014
Decided On : 08-01-2019
Seeking benefits of seniority, promotion from date of his immediate junior was promoted to post of Inspector GD and grant of backwages/salary for promotional post in the relevant period – Petitioner aggrieved assailed order passed by respondent No.4 and consequential order has been rejected – Held, Petitioner had volunteered to continue with his tour of duty/assignment in Afghanistan, which involved peril to his life – He opted out of more secure assignment of attending promotional course, to face hazards of dangerous assignment in service of nation – Court cannot award any medal for such acts of commitment to duty, but can certainly commend such acts which are plain sight – Petitioner cannot visited by any adverse consequences financial or otherwise for performing his duties in an exemplary fashion law provides for protection of service benefits of petitioner in such situations and denying benefits in standing order are to that extent and held not applicable to cases like that of petitioner – Matter remitted back to respondent No.4-Deputy Inspector of General (Administration), East Frontier I.T.B.P Force – Mandamus issued commanding respondent no.4-Deputy Inspector of General (Administration), East Frontier I.T.B.P Force to reconsider claim of petitioner for grant of seniority and promotion and backwages with effect from date of immediate junior was promoted to the rank of Inspector G.D – Petition allowed – (Paras: 39,42 and 46)
Facts of the case:
Seeking benefits of seniority, promotion from date of his immediate junior was promoted to post of Inspector GD and grant of backwages/salary for promotional post in the relevant period – Petitioner aggrieved assailed order passed by respondent No.4 and consequential order has been rejected.
Findings of the court:
Petitioner had volunteered to continue with his tour of duty/assignment in Afghanistan, which involved peril to his life – He opted out of more secure assignment of attending promotional course, to face hazards of dangerous assignment in service of nation – Court cannot award any medal for such acts of commitment to duty, but can certainly commend such acts which are plain sight – Petitioner cannot visited by any adverse consequences financial or otherwise for performing his duties in an exemplary fashion law provides for protection of service benefits of petitioner in such situations and denying benefits in standing order are to that extent and held not applicable to cases like that of petitioner – Matter remitted back to respondent No.4-Deputy Inspector of General (Administration), East Frontier I.T.B.P Force – Mandamus issued commanding respondent no.4-Deputy Inspector of General (Administration), East Frontier I.T.B.P Force to reconsider claim of petitioner for grant of seniority and promotion and backwages with effect from date of immediate junior was promoted to the rank of Inspector G.D.
Result: Petition allowed
Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel assisted by Sri Dharmendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 7.
2. By the order dated 19.07.2012 passed by the respondent No.4, the claim of the petitioner for seniority benefits, promotion to the post of Inspector GD from the date his immediate junior was promoted and grant of backwages/salary of the promotional post in the relevant period has been rejected. The same reasons for invalidating the claim of the seniority and promotion made by the petitioner have been reiterated in the order dated 28.07.2012.
3. The petitioner thus aggrieved, has assailed the order dated 19.07.2012 passed by the respondent No.4 and the consequential order dated 28.07.2012 passed by the respondent No.6 declining the prayer of the petitioner for the benefits of the seniority, promotion from the date of his immediate junior was promoted to the post of Inspector GD and grant of backwages/salary for the promotional post in the relevant period in this writ petition.
4. The petitioner has sought further relief for grant of promotion to the post of Inspector GD with effect from 04.07.2008, i.e., the date when his immediate junior in the seniority list was promoted to the post of Inspector in the respondent-Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP). The prayer for all consequential service benefits including back-wages/salary for the post of Inspector GD for the period such salary was denied is also made in the instant writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned orders have been passed in the teeth of the standing order no.1/92 dated 22.7.1992. The petitioner has been arbitrarily denied promotion and seniority to the post of Inspector GD & the backwages/salary for the promotional post in the relevant period. It is also submitted that the Standing Order No.01/92 dated 22.07.1992, insofar as it denies back-wages/salary of the promotional post is bad in law and cannot apply to the case of the petitioner.
6. Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the orders assailed in the writ petition have been passed in the light of the standing order no.1/92.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. The petitioner was appointed as a Head Constable GD in the respondent-ITBP on 16.08.1993. In due course he was promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector GD.
9. The petitioner was nominated for foreign posting and directed to proceed for deployment as part of the ITBP contingent in the BRO project Zaranj, Afghanistan in December, 2007. The petitioner upon receipt of movement orders was relieved by his parent Battalion and directed to proceed to the transiting camp for onward movement to Afghanistan.
10. The petitioner in obedience of the command of his superiors reported to Delhi for pre-formalities and training on 12.01.2008. The petitioner attended at the ITBP, Tigri Camp, New Delhi on 14.01.2008 for deployment in Zaranj, Afghanistan. The name of the petitioner figured in the list of ITBP personnel being deployed at BRO project Zaranj, Afghanistan.
11. While the procedures and formalities for actual physical deployment in Afghanistan were being done at New Delhi, the name of the petitioner was short listed for the 52nd Battalion SO TAC course.
12. The SO TAC course is a promotional course for promotion of Sub-Inspectors to the rank of Inspectors GD.
13. The petitioner was asked his willingness to attend the course by message no.7378 dated 29.01.2008. The petitioner had already been made part of the contingent which was being deployed in Afghanistan. Consequently he gave his unwillingness to attend the course.
14. Clearly, unwillingness of the petitioner to attend the SO TAC course resulted from compulsion of service conditions and commitment to another assignment in the line of duty. The unwillingness was not on account of any other consideration or with a view to shirk responsibil
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
