S.I. Dr. Mohinder Pal Bhardwaj vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 2856 Del

*         HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

+         Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8555 of 2009

                               Judgment reserved on: July 20, 2009

%                              Judgment delivered on: July 27, 2009


     S.I. Dr. Mohinder Pal Bhardwaj
     No. 575/D, PIS No.27820011
     S/o Shri Brahm Prakash
     477, Sanjay Enclave
     Opp. G.TK. Bus Depot
     Delhi-110033.                                 ...Petitioner

                               Through   Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Adv.

                      Versus

1.   Lt. Governor of Delhi
     Raj Niwas Marg
     Delhi-110054.

2.   Commissioner of Police
     Police Headquarters
     I.P. Estates
     New Delhi-110002.

3.   Jt. Commissioner of Police (HQ-1)
     Police Headquarters
     I.P. Estates
     New Delhi-110002.

4.   Dy. Commissioner of Police (HQ-1)
     Police Headquarters
     I.P. Estates
     New Delhi-110002.                             ...Respondents
                               Through   None

WP (C) No.8555/2009                                         Page 1 of 5
 Coram:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?                                 Yes

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                  Not necessary

3. Whether the judgment should be reported
   in the Digest?                                      Not necessary

MADAN B. LOKUR, J.

The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 21 st August,

2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,

New Delhi in O.A. No. 1921/2007.

2. The Petitioner was appointed as a Head Constable in the

Ambulance Wing of the Delhi Police. He was promoted as Assistant

Sub Inspector on the death of one Sub Inspector Vinod Kumar. It may

be noted that the Petitioner was found fit for promotion in the year 1988

and he was actually given his promotion on 29 th August, 1988.

3. It appears that two Assistant Sub Inspectors had been sent on

deputation with the Fingerprint Bureau. These two Assistant Sub

Inspectors were absorbed in the Fingerprint Bureau sometime in 1992.

However, it appears that they approached the Tribunal for a change in

their deemed date of appointment to the new post. The Tribunal had

apparently decided the matter in favour of those two Assistant Sub

Inspectors and they were deemed to have been appointed to the new

post in the Fingerprint Bureau as on 29th December, 1987.

4. According to the Petitioner, as a result of the above, two

vacancies in the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector had fallen vacant on

29th December, 1987 and that he should have been adjusted against one

of these vacancies. Since this was not done, the Petitioner approached

the Tribunal for relief.

5. The Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the case of the

Petitioner after taking into consideration several factors, including the

fact that the Petitioner was found fit for promotion in 1988 and,

therefore, there was no question of his being promoted against a deemed

vacancy that had arisen on 29th December, 1987. Moreover, in actual

fact the two posts of Assistant Sub Inspector were not vacant on 29th

December, 1987. It was only as a result of an order passed by the

Tribunal that the vacancies were deemed to have arisen on the

absorption of two Assistant Sub Inspectors in the Fingerprint Bureau.

The Tribunal also noted that there was no obligation on the part of the

Respondents to fill up the vacant post on the date it became vacant and,

therefore, the Petitioner could not insist that he should be deemed to

have been promoted with effect from 29th December, 1987. Finally, the

Tribunal noted that the Petitioner had not suffered any loss in terms of

seniority inasmuch as nobody junior to him had been promoted against

any of the two deemed vacant posts on 29th December, 1987.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated the submissions

that he had made before the Tribunal but we are of the view that there is

no merit in the contentions. The reasons accepted by the Tribunal,

which we have indicated above, are quite cogent and they certainly

justify the non-promotion of the Petitioner against the deemed vacancies

as on 29th December, 1987.

7. Since there is no jurisdictional error committed by the

Tribunal in its decision, we find no reason to interfere with the

impugned order.

8. The writ petition is dismissed.

                                             MADAN B. LOKUR, J




July 27, 2009                                A.K. PATHAK, J
ncg

Certified that the corrected
copy of the judgment has
been transmitted in the main
Server.