Gurmohan Singh vs Union Of India And Ors.
1987 Latest Caselaw 28 Del

JUDGMENT

M.K. Chawla, J.

(1) Show cause notice was issued to the respondents as to why the proceedings under Sections 11 and 12 read with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be not initiated for their willful failure to implement the judgment and orders in Civil Writ Petition No. 346 of 1972. The respondents have filed the affidavit justifying the action and raised the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition itself. In order to determine the controversy let us first go to the salient features.

(2) Gurmohan Singh is petitioner and is working as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Company Commander, 31st Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Calcutta. He was not satisfied with the list of seniority. Now- a-days be is posted in Amritsar (Punjab). He was not satisfied with the arbitrary action of the respondents denying him the seniority on the basis of his confirmation and due promotion in terms of departmental rules. He preferred to file C.W.P. No. 1053 of 1970 which was heard and disposed of by Jagjit Singh, J. on 22nd March, 1971. His prayer in the Writ Petition was allowed and the department was directed to re-fix the inter se seniority amongst the confirmed Deputy Superintendents of Police. In spite of this direction the respondents did not give due promotion to the petitioner and he again rushed to the court by filing another Writ Petition No. 346 of 1972. The said writ petition was allowed on 22nd April, 1975. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under : "HAVING regard to all the circumstances of the case, it appears to me that the reasonable course to follow would be to quash the impugned decision and to direct that the case of the petitioner for promotion as on October 8. 1969 be considered afresh on the basis of all such material as the authorities may be entitled in law but excluding the remark recorded on April 25, 1969. The matter would be considered afresh in the light of the aforesaid direction within a period of three months".

(3) In compliance with the directions of this court respondent No. 1 re-considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Assistant Commandant and assigned him notional seniority in the said rank with effect from 25th October, 1969 i.e. the date when the officers junior to him in the writ petition were so promoted.

(4) Now the case of the petitioner is that having been given the notional promotion to the rank of Assistant Commandant with effect from 25th October, 1969 he became eligible for promoting to the rack of Commandant with effect from September, 1972 when respondents 3 to 17 in the said writ petition were so promoted. His case for promotion to the rank of the Commandant was re-considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) held in March 1976 The D.P.C. recommended his name for promotion with effect from 17-4-197.6. This grievance is now the subject matter of the present contempt petition.

(5) The case of the respondents as disclosed in the counter is that in C.W.P. No. 1053 of 1970 the petitioner was allowed to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant with effect from 8-10-1969 by treating him eligible in terms of Rule 105(3-A)(iii) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 195 while in C.W. P, No. 346 of 1972 the case of the petitioner was ordered to be considered for promotion as on 8-10-1969 after excluding the adverse remarks not communicated to him within a period of three months from the date of the judgment dated 25th April, 1975. In accordance with the aforesaid judgments the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion as from 8-10-1969 and the national date of promotion was fixed as 25-10-1969, the date on which his junior was actually promoted as Assistant Commandant. Under these circumstances there is no non-compliance of any of the orders/judgments of this Court and this petition is therefore not competent and not maintainable.

(6) The other ground urged for the dismissal of the petition is that the relief nought by the petitioner for having not been considered for the post of Additional D.I.G. in the year 1983 is being claimed only in 1986 i.e. after a lapse of three vears. The petition thus is in competent on account of delay and laches and therefore deserves ta be dismissed on this ground alone. The respondents have also denied various averments made in the petition on merits.

(7) The facts stated above do indicate that the prayers made in the two writ petitions were duly complied with and he was given due promotion from the date when his juniors were promoted. Beyond that there is no other writ or prayer for his promotion as Commandant nor there is any direction of this court to this effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has tried to take advantage of the observations made by the court in C.W.P. No. 346 of 1972 which read as under : "IT, however, appears that during the pendency of the petition, the case of the petitioner for promotion to the said post again came up before the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held no January 25,1973 when on a review of the service record of the petitioner, the Committee found the petitioner, as indeed certain other officers, "fit for promotion as they all have been graded as very good" with reference to their record of Service".

(8) The contention is that if in the year 1969 the petitioner was considered fit for promotion as Assistant Commandant, there was nothing wrong subsequently for depriving him to become eligible for promotion as Commandant in view of the service record.

(9) That may be so, but it is not the case of the petitioner that his service record was not perused or considered by the D.P.C. According to the respondents doe regard to the observations were given by the D. P.C. in as much as his case was reviewed by the D.P.C. in its meetings held on July, 1972, May, 1973 and August, 1974, The Committee, after reviewing the service record of the petitioner, did not find him fit turn promotion as Commandant. This was done so after taking into consideration various factors including higher responsibilities involved in the rank of the Commandant, In my view it is not correct to say that the directions of this court have not been complied with by the respondents. It appears that the present petition has been filed with a view to pressurise the respondents in the garb of two writ petitions. In my opinion directions have been duly complied with If the petitioner has any grievance against any of the DP.C. recommendations he may take appropriate steps available to him in law.

(10) In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any substance in the contempt petition which is dismissed. Notice issued to the respondents in the contempt petition is hereby discharged. No order as to costs.