* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 121/2015
S.P. SINGH, ADG & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mrs. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Sameer Sharma & Mr.
Sumeer Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC for R-1 to
R-3 with Mr. S.S. Sejwal, Law
Officer & Mr. B.K. Rout, Pairvi
Officer, CRPF
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
ORDER
% 07.01.2015 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. No. 182/2015 (EXEMPTION)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 121/2015 By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to the respondents to carry out a 'Cadre Review' of existing Group 'A' Service of Central Reserve W.P.(C) 121/2015 Page 1 of 6 Police Force (in short 'CRPF') in a time bound manner without any further delay in terms of the instructions already laid down by the Department of Personnel & Training (in short 'DoPT') to ensure career progression and career expectations of these Group 'A' officers.
The grievance raised by the petitioners is that as per the various monographs issued by the DoPT from time to time, particularly the Office Memorandum dated 14.12.2010, it is mandatory for the Central Government to review the cadre structures once in every five years so as to maintain harmony between the requirements of the cadre and the legitimate career expectations of its members. Unfortunately, no such exercise for 'Cadre Review' has taken place in the CRPF since 1996. The petitioners have referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan & Ors., (2010) 4 SCC 290, wherein the Court took a view that the statutory duty which is cast on the State Government and the Central Government to undertake the Cadre Review exercise every five years is ordinarily mandatory subject to exceptions which may be justified in the facts of a given case but surely lethargy, in-action and absence of a sense of responsibility cannot fall within the category of just exceptions. The petitioners also referred to a letter dated 17.01.2014 of the Joint Secretary (Police-II), W.P.(C) 121/2015 Page 2 of 6 Ministry of Home Affairs (in short 'MHA'), Government of India to the Director General, CRPF to look into the matter for conducting a Cadre Review of Group 'A' Service of CRPF and the said letter was followed by another letter dated 24.04.2014 from the Home Secretary, Government of India stating therein that such Cadre Review of CRPF was conducted in the year 1991 and was to be reviewed every five years thereafter and premised on this, the DG, CRPF was directed to look into the matter and submit his proposal for Cadre Review without any further delay. Since no action was forthcoming, the Home Secretary wrote another letter dated 06.06.2014 and categorically informed the DG CRPF that the time specified in the DoPT guidelines for submitting Cadre Review proposal has already expired long back but no proposal has been received from CFPF. In this regard and in response to the said communication, the DG CRPF in his letter dated 02.07.2014 observed that cadre review proposal is pending for finalisation due to non receipt of final work study report. As regard work study, it was added that with due approval of MHA, M/s Accenture Service Pvt. Ltd, was awarded the contract of work study for augmenting the staff strength in respect of Force HQr, 4 Zonal HQrs and CoBRA Sector HQr during the month of March-2013. Since the study report on H R augmentation submitted by this consultant was found W.P.(C) 121/2015 Page 3 of 6 lacking sufficient ground of functional justification against the recommended posts, CRPF had advised them to rectify the shortcomings wherever needed.
Mr. Vikram Jetly, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appears on advance notice on behalf of the respondents/Union of India and submits that Cadre Review proposal of Group 'A' Service of CRPF has already been submitted by the DG CRPF to the MHA on 10.12.2014 after having concurrence of Financial Advisor and approval of DG CRPF and the matter is presently under examination with the MHA. The learned CGSC also submits that after examination in the MHA, the same shall be sent to the DoPT with regard to the Group 'A' Service of CRPF and then to the Ministry of Finance. The learned CGSC also submits that the same shall take some more time to finalise the Cadre Review of Group 'A' Service of CRPF.
Indisputably, this Cadre Review of Group 'A' Service of CRPF has not taken place since the year 1996. This issue of Cadre Review has been a subject matter of discussion before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hemraj Singh Chauhan (supra), wherein the Apex Court took a view that the statutory duty which is cast on the State Government and the Central Government to undertake the Cadre Review exercise every W.P.(C) 121/2015 Page 4 of 6 five years is ordinarily mandatory, subject to just exceptions. The learned Apex Court went on to observe that lethargy, in-action and absence of a sense of responsibility cannot fall within the category of just exceptions. With regard to these petitioners who are Group 'A' Officers of CRPF, the exercise of Cadre Review has not taken place for the last more than 19 years due to which a large number of officers have either retired without being promoted to higher ranks, or are likely to retire in future too suffering the same fate.
Considering the fact that CRPF has already submitted the Cadre Review proposal of Group 'A' Service of CRPF after seeking concurrence of Financial Advisor and the approval of the DG CRPF, we direct that the MHA shall take steps to proceed in the matter to carry out Cadre Review within a maximum period of four months from the date of this order. For any further delay caused at the end of any of the department, the concerned officers will have to offer explanation for causing such delay considering the fact that this exercise of Cadre Review has not been taken place for the last more than 19 years.
With the above direction, the present petition stands disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court again if the said W.P.(C) 121/2015 Page 5 of 6 direction is not complied with by the respondents.
Dasti.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
I.S.MEHTA, J.
JANUARY 07, 2015 v W.P.(C) 121/2015 Page 6 of 6