Mukesh Kumar vs Commissioner Of Police Delhi & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 1228 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Judgment delivered on: 23.02.2012

+       W.P.(C) 919/2012

MUKESH KUMAR                                                   ... Petitioner

                                         versus


COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI & ORS                             ... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners          : Mr Vishwendra Verma
For the Respondent           : Mr V. K. Tandon proxy counsel for Mr L.K. Garg

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

                                   JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

CM 2037/2012

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

WP(C) 919/2012

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.09.2011

passed in OA 3393/2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal

Bench, New Delhi. The petitioner's Original Application was dismissed at

the admission stage itself, in view of the speaking order passed by the

respondents on 23.09.2010.

2. The petitioner had earlier filed OA 1980/2009 in which he sought

seniority from the date he was appointed in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police

(ITBP). Before we set down the order passed in that Original Application,

it would be necessary to point out that the petitioner is currently working in

the Delhi Police. Earlier, he was appointed as a Sub-Inspector with Indo-

Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) on 05.07.1993 on the basis of a Combined

Graduate Level Examination, 1991 conducted by the Staff Selection

Commission. Thereafter, he was on deputation to the Special Protection

Group (SPG) with effect from 26.09.1996. He applied for the post of Sub-

Inspector (Executive) in the Delhi Police in 1997 and he was selected for

that post and joined the Delhi Police on 26.11.1999 after tendering

technical resignation to his parent department. It is in this background that

the earlier Original Application 1980/2009 was filed, whereby the

petitioner sought that his seniority be fixed by taking into account his

service with the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP).

3. The said Original Application No. 1980/2009 was disposed of by an

order dated 20.07.2010 by the Tribunal directing that the petitioner may

prefer an additional representation within two weeks and that the

respondents would pass a reasoned and speaking order within two months

of the receipt of such a representation informing the petitioner with regard

to fixation of his seniority, particularly vis-a-vis, the private respondent

(Shri Anil Kumar). It was also directed that, depending upon the seniority

fixed by the respondent, they would consider him for promotion in

accordance with law. Liberty was also given to the petitioner to seek

redressal in accordance with law, if he was aggrieved by the speaking

order, which was to be passed by the respondents.

4. Thereafter, the respondents passed a speaking order on the

representation made by the petitioner, on 23.09.2010. The relevant portion

of the order reads as under:-

"The plea taken by the applicant in respect of S.I. Anil Kumar (Now Inspector) does not cover his case as S.I. Anil Kumar was taken on deputation from CRPF w.e.f. 1.07.1999 and he was permanently absorbed in Delhi Police on 13.01.2000. As per judgment dated 14.12.1999 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5363-64/97-Roop Lal & Ors. Vs L.G., Delhi & Ors. and judgment dated 11.01.2000 of the Hon'ble CAT, Delhi in O.A. No. 1562/1994-

Jai Bhagwan Vs UOI & Ors. he was entitled to get the service rendered in his parent Department. Hence, he was given the seniority as per the service rendered by him in his parent department. As regards applicant, he was appointed in Delhi Police through direct recruitment on the basis of Examination- 1997 conducted by the SSC. As per FR 22, the applicant is entitled for counting his previous service rendered in ITBP for pensionary benefits only but not for inter-se-seniority/seniority.

In pursuance of Hon'ble CAT, New Delhi's judgment/order dated 20.07.2010, the case of applicant SI (Exe.) Mukesh Kumar No. D/3512 gas been examined in this Hdqrs. in view of Rule 22 of Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980 and S.O. No. 291/1995 as well as FR-22 by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi the inter-se- seniority of directly recruited SI (Exe.) in Delhi Police was fixed under Rule 22 of Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980 and S.O. No. 291/1995. His inter-se seniority was also fixed alongwith his batchmates on the basis of marks obtained in the entrance examination/interview and marks obtained at PTC. Hence, the inter-se-seniority fixed by this Hdqrs. hold good.

In view of facts explained above, the representation filed by the SI (Exe.) Mukesh Kumar No. D/3512 is hereby rejected. He may be informed accordingly."

5. Being aggrieved by the speaking order, in view of the liberty granted

to him, the petitioner filed the Original Application No. 3393/2011,

wherein the impugned order dated 20.09.2011 has been passed. The

Tribunal has considered the speaking order dated 23.09.2010 and found that

there was nothing wrong with the same. The main point that arises in this

case is that Anil Kumar, who is alleged to be junior to the petitioner, was,

in fact, on deputation from Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) with

effect from 01.07.1999 and was permanently absorbed on 13.01.2000. On

the other hand, the petitioner was appointed to the Delhi Police through

direct recruitment on the basis of an examination and he had joined the

Delhi Police on 26.11.1999. Consequently, the two cases are entirely

different. Whereas, in the case of Anil Kumar, he had joined the Delhi

Police on 01.07.1999, the petitioner, as already indicated above, joined later

on 26.11.1999. In any event, Anil Kumar had been given the benefit of

past service in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of

Roop Lal and Others v. LG, Delhi and Others: Civil Appeal No. 5363-

64/1997.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to invoke FR 22 in

order to substantiate his case. However, we find that FR 22 does not at all

deal with seniority and it is only concerned with pay fixation. Insofar as

the petitioner is concerned, there is no difficulty with regard to pay fixation

inasmuch as the petitioner would be entitled to count his service in Indo-

Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) for pensionary benefits, but not for inter se

seniority.

7. The Tribunal, after considering the case of the petitioner, inter alia,

passed the following order:-

"4. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the record on file, we are of the opinion that this OA can be decided at the admission stage itself as the orders placed at Annexure A-1, passed by the respondents are very clear and self-explanatory. A perusal of the above mentioned order shows that the applicant was appointed in Delhi Police through direct recruitment on the basis of examination conducted by the SSC whereas Shri Anil Kumar was taken on deputation from CRPF with effect from 1.07.1999. Thus, while one is a case of direct appointment, the other is case of deputation. It is also seen that the applicant joined Delhi Police on 26.11.1999 and so did respondent no.3 Shri Anil Kumar from 1.07.1999. But respondent no.3 has been granted seniority from 1993 since he was on deputation whereas seniority of the applicant has been counted from the date of his joining the Delhi Police.

5. In the above facts we are of the opinion that no case has been made out by the applicant for allowing the reliefs sought by him. OA is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit."

8. In this background, we see no reason to interfere with the order

passed by the Tribunal, which is impugned before us.

The writ petition is dismissed.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K. JAIN, J FEBRUARY 23, 2012 SR