Ravindra Kumar Saini vs State Of U.P. And Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 6593 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 18
 
A.F.R.
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 66308 of 2006
 

 
Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Saini
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Nalin Kumar Sharma
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Sunil Hali,J. 

Incidents of crime and terrorists activities within the Country has put strain on the Police Force, who in addition to perform their duties of maintaining the law and order  are also entrusted with the job of countering the menace of terrorism created by the terrorists and other anti social elements  equipped with sophisticated weapons. It requires equal measure of response from the police force. It not only involves the courage but requires high-skill to encounter such menace. State being aware of this fact has taken steps to encourage the role of such police personnel involved in encountering such elements by providing incentives  in the shape of out of turn promotion. State of Uttar Pradesh has also promulgated an order which provides for out of turn promotions for those who are involved in countering the terrorism.  However, it has been seen that while identifying the role of such police personnel most of them do not find their names in the list of out of turn promotion. Present case is also one of such type where the petitioner claims to have been part of a team which was involved in encountering the terrorists on the said date but for reasons unknown his name has been excluded.

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was working as Constable in the police department and was posted at Police Station Muzaffar Nagar. An information was received on19.2.2004 that two persons armed with A.K. 47 rifle riding on Honda motorcycle were coming towards Roorki for creating some act of terrorism and in order to stop them from moving the police party pursued them in a Jeep.  A team headed by Station House Officer S.K. Pratap and some other constable including the petitioner chased the two criminals in a Jeep. It is said that terrorists had fired on the jeep which was returned by the members of the party. In the said act one terrorist died and other managed to escape. There were two sets of police party engaged in encountering the terrorist; one was headed by the Station House Officer and other was by S.S.P., Muzaffar Nagar. Recommendation was made for out of turn promotions in favour of three constables namely Raj Kumar Yadav, Praveen Kumar Yadav and Naseem who were part of the raiding party along with petitioner headed by the Station House Officer S.K. Pratap.

After having failed to seek the recommendation for out of turn promotions a writ petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court which was disposed of by this Court directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. In pursuance to the direction issued, S.S.P vide his communication dated 28.5.2005 stated that those police personnel who had been awarded out of turn promotion had played the same role as was done by the petitioner in encountering the terrorist. He had specifically stated that raiding party headed by the Station House Officer S.K. Pratap was fired upon by the two militants which was returned by all the members consisting of raiding party. This recommendation did not find favour with the D.G.P. who rejected the case of the petitioner by holding that his role in the said encounter was not  an extra ordinary act of bravery.

Learned Standing Counsel has stated that the grant of out of turn promotion depends upon exceptional act of bravery by the police personnel involved in such encounter. This fact has been clearly examined by the respondent and he has come to the conclusion that the role of the petitioner was not  an exceptional act of bravery so as to make him eligible for grant of out of turn promotions.

Heard Ms. Mamta Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Moti Lal learned Standing Counsel and have perused the material on record.

What can be an exceptional act or bravery can only be adjudged and evaluated by  a person who was heading the raiding party. The role played by every individual member of the party is required to be judged at the time of encounter.  As far as this Court is concerned, it cannot have any such expertise to adjudge and evaluate the same. It is for the competent authority and experts in the field to evaluate. None of the orders placed on the record by the respondents indicates as to what particular factors were taken into consideration while granting out of turn promotions to others.

There is no dispute with respect to this proposition that out of turn promotion has to be granted strictly in accordance with the norms set out by the Government vide order dated 3.9.1994. However, while examining the role of police personnel more particularly where the act is performed along with other members clear distinction has to be drawn of the role played by those members who were said to have shown exemplary courage and bravery from the one who have been excluded. In the present case, petitioner was member of the encountering party headed by S.K. Pratap, S.H.O. which includes amongst other R.K.Yadav, Praveen Yadav and Naseem. Admitted case of the petitioner is that they received an information that two antisocial elements are coming towards Roorki for creating trouble and on receipt of such information a team of police personnel followed them in a jeep. The terrorists fired on the jeep which was returned by the police personnel. No specific role is shown to have been played by any member of the group while encountering the terrorist. However, R.K.Yadav, Praveen Yadav and Naseem have been given out of turn promotion and the case of the petitioner has been excluded. The competent authority while granting out of turn promotion to those officers has not indicated the specific role played by them in the said encounter which can be an act of exceptional bravery. On the same analogy, petitioner was also entitled to be granted out of turn promotion as on facts there is no distinction between the role played by the petitioner and the officer mentioned herein above. The Deputy Inspector General of the police while rejecting the case of the petitioner has not taken into consideration the recommendation made by the S.S.P. where he has clearly stated that petitioner is also entitled to be given out of turn promotion. Report of the S.S.P. could not have been brushed aside and that too without assigning any reason. It is clear case of discrimination. Petitioner constituted a class with those who have been  granted such benefits and his exclusion per-se is discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution. It is important to mention here that the competent authority has accepted the fact that it was an act of bravery on the part of the personnel who were involved in encountering the terrorists without assigning any specific role to particular police personnel for the purpose of conferring benefits. In such circumstances, petitioner could not have been excluded.

In the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 6.9.2006 is hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to grant out of turn promotion to the petitioner as has been done in case of others namely R.K.Yadav, Praveen Yadav and Naseem from the date they have been given benefits within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Consequential benefits, if any shall also be given to the petitioner within the said period.

Order Date :- 20.12.2011

RKS/