Rattan Singh Chauhan vs The Union Of India
2012 Latest Caselaw 5792 Del

$~3

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                     Date of Decision: September 26, 2012


+                           W.P.(C) 5166/2012

      RATTAN SINGH CHAUHAN                       ..... Petitioner
               Represented by: Mr.J.C.Malik, Advocate.

                   versus

      THE UNION OF INDIA                               ..... Respondent
               Represented by:        Ms.Barkha Babbar, Advocate.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH


PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. WP(C) No.1857/1997 filed by the writ petitioner was allowed vide order dated May 29, 2001 holding that un-communicated adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Record which had adversely affected petitioner's right to be promoted from the rank of Havaldar to Naib Subedar had to be ignored. The writ petitioner was held entitled to be considered as per Review DPC for promotion to the post of Naib Subedar.

2. By the time the decision was rendered, the petitioner had already retired on October 31, 1996 and thus while giving effect to the recommendations of the Review DPC, the petitioner was promoted with effect from January 01, 1996 i.e. the date when persons junior to him were

promoted.

3. The petitioner had two claims. Firstly that, if promoted as a Naib Subedar he would have been entitled to serve for another two years and thus he claimed salary for two more years as Naib Subedar and also claimed a right to be further promoted as Subedar and Subedar Major. These reliefs not being granted to him by the Army Authorities, he filed another writ petition claiming relief as aforesaid, which on transfer to the Armed Forces Tribunal got registered as TA No.437/2010 and has been disposed of vide impugned order dated March 23, 2010.

4. Directions have been issued to pay petitioner salary to the post of Naib Subedar for two years along with other benefits after adjusting the pension paid. Benefit of being promoted firstly as Subedar and then as Subedar Major has been denied, but without any reasons.

5. Grievance in the instant writ petition is to the benefit of promotion firstly as Subedar and then as Subedar Major being denied by the Armed Forces Tribunal.

6. It is not in dispute that eligibility norm for being promoted as a Subedar would be fitness achieved as per preceding five years ACRs, three of which must pertain to the petitioner having worked as a Naib Subedar. For the post of Subedar Major the fitness has to be achieved as per preceding five year ACRs, three of which must pertain to the post of Subedar.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner never worked as a Naib Subedar, much less a Subedar and thus there would be no ACRs pertaining to his working on said two posts.

8. These are the reasons on which the petitioner would not be entitled to any further relief, but we would have appreciated the Tribunal to

have so recorded and not simply having denied this prayer without any reasons.

9. The writ petition is dismissed.

10. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 dk