Abdul Rahman vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 666 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                        NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                     Writ Petition (S) No. 2927 of 2021

   1. Abdul Rahman S/o Late Mohd. Aziz Khan Aged About 61 Years R/o
      Quarter No. 182, Chhavni Police Line Bhilai, Police Station Chhavni
      Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.               ---- Petitioner

                                   Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of
      Home/police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post
      Rakhi, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District :
      Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   2. Director General Of Police (D.G.P.) Police Headquarters (Phq). Police
      Station And Post Rakhi , Atal Nagar , New Raipur , District Raipur
      Chhattisgarh.

   3. Inspector General Of Police (I.G.P.) Office Of Inspector General Of
      Police , 32 Bungalow, Bhiali , District Durg Chhattisgarh.

   4. Superintendent Of Police (Sp) Office Of Superintendent Of Police,
      Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

   5. Shail Sharma Sub Inspector (Asi), Police Station Padmanabhpur, Durg,
      District Durg Chhattisgarh.

   6. Baldau Chandrakar Assistant Sub Inspector (Asi), Police Station Anda,
      District Durg Chhattisgarh.

   7. Parwashi Yadav Assistant Sub Inspector (Asi), Police Station Traffic,
      Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

                                                            ----Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate.

For State                      :     Smt. Binu Sharma, P.L.


                   Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                              Order On Board
28.06.2021

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is the non

consideration of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub

Inspector from the post of Assistant Sub Inspector.

2. The contention of the petitioner was that, in the year 2009 the petitioner

got implicated in two criminal cases bearing Crime Nos. 242/2009 and

243/2009 registered at the Police Station Balod. The petitioner was

subject to prosecution under the provisions of 452, 354, 294, 506, 323

in one case and in another case for the offence u/s 452, 354, 294, 506,

34 of IPC. The petitioner finally stood acquitted in both these criminal

cases vide judgment dated 08.07.2010 by the two separate judgments

passed on the same day. Meanwhile, the promotion of the petitioner

from the post of Head Constable to the Post of ASI had got deferred.

The petitioner's promotional avenues also got deferred because of a

departmental enquiry initiated by the respondents. The Departmental

Enquiry also now got concluded whereby the petitioner stands

exonerated of all the charges levelled against him. Subsequently, the

case of the petitioner was considered for promotion and he was

promoted w.e.f. 09.01.2012 on the post of ASI.

3. Now it is the contention of the petitioner that though the respondents

have considered for promoting the private respondents No. 5 to 7 on

the post of Sub Inspector, the petitioner has been left out inspite of his

getting acquitted in criminal cases and getting exonerated in the

departmental enquiry.

4. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has crossed the age of

61 years and that only a few months of service is left for the petitioner

for his retirement, admitting the petition and calling for the reply of the

respondents would be a futile exercise on the part of the petitioner and

prays that the writ petition at this juncture be disposed of directing the

respondents to consider and decide the representation that the

petitioner has made in respect of his grievance.

5. The limited relief sought for by the petitioner is not opposed by the

State Counsel, who however adds that the claim of the petitioner can

only be subject to his falling within the zone of consideration, secondly

his being high in the order of seniority and thirdly subject to the

petitioner fulfilling the eligibility criteria.

6. Given the limited grievance that the petitioner has and the submission

made by the Counsel appearing on either side, the writ petition at this

juncture is disposed of directing the respondents No. 2 and 3 to take an

appropriate decision on the representation of the petitioner, so far as

his issue of seniority as also his claim for promotion to the next Higher

Post of Sub Inspector, at the earliest preferably within a period of 60

days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Sd/-

1. P. Sam Koshy Judge

Jyotijha