Rishi Pal Singh vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 228 Del

$~R-34
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Date of Decision: January 15, 2013

+                             W.P.(C) 4098/2001

      RISHI PAL SINGH                                ..... Petitioner
                     Represented by: Ms.Archana Gaur, Advocate

                     versus

      COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR.             ..... Respondents
                  Represented by: Mr.V.C.Jha for Ms.Sonia Sharma,
                                 Advocate

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The relevant facts are that on December 4, 1979 the petitioner was appointed as a Constable (Driver), and as per Rules was on probation for a period of 2 years.

3. Due to pendency of a criminal case, the probation was extended i.e. petitioner was not confirmed as a Constable (Driver). As time passed by, persons junior to the petitioner were confirmed and even promoted to the post of Head Constable (Driver). The year 1991 was reached.

4. This compelled the petitioner to file O.A.No.1106/1991 which was allowed by the Tribunal with a direction issued that petitioner be not only confirmed but additionally promoted to the post of HC (Driver) with effect from the date persons junior to the petitioner were promoted.

5. The Department complied with the same. Petitioner was not only confirmed in service but even promoted as a HC (Driver).

6. The petitioner thereafter raised the issue in the year 1998 when he filed O.A.No.55/1998, pointing out that his name was not being considered for being promoted to the post of ASI (Driver) Grade-I. Persons junior to him were promoted.

7. In spite of being informed that the promotion was not a matter of right but required a trade test to be conducted and that the petitioner could not successfully clear the same, the Tribunal gave a verdict in favour of the petitioner resulting in the petitioner being promoted as ASI (Driver) with retrospective date, being July 29, 1997.

8. It was in the aforesaid backdrop of facts that O.A.No.1832/1999 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated April 10, 2001 wherein petitioner was wanting his name to be entered in the cadre of MT(Operations) and he being placed as ASI/MT(Operations).

9. The petitioner was predicating parity with one Ramesh Chander who had been inducted in the cadre as a Constable (Driver), earning promotion as a H.C.(Driver) and earned a promotion to the post of ASI/MT (Operations) when permission was granted to him in the year 1995 to opt for a cadre change.

10. Reason given by the Tribunal is that when petitioner filed O.A. No.55/1998 he never claimed any such relief i.e. pertaining to change in cadre. The Tribunal noted that the petitioner earned a promotion by ascertaining a right before it, which right was upheld; to the post of ASI (Driver) Grade-I.

11. We concur with the reasons given by the Tribunal and would simply highlight one more fact. Ramesh Chander who entered the cadre of Driver in Delhi Police was permitted a change in cadre on account of he being

qualified to do so and additionally he having been awarded a gallantry medal/award.

12. Suffice would it be to state that the writ petitioner has not relied upon any Rules which govern the subject of cadre change. We would simply highlight once again; whereas Ramesh Chander was granted benefit of cadre change in the year 1995, petitioner never opted to do so. Till as late as the year 1998 he litigated to earn promotion in the cadre of Drivers.

13. When questioned as to why petitioner desires to opt for the cadre of MT(Operations) inasmuch as he was promoted as a ASI(Driver) with retrospective effect from July 29, 1997, learned counsel states that there are no further promotional avenues in the Driver cadre. However, counsel concedes that with the implementation of the Assured Career Progression Scheme in the year 1999 and the modified Assured Career Progression Scheme in the year 2009 said issue becomes irrelevant inasmuch as time bound, in-situ, promotions have to be granted as per the two schemes.

14. The writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J

VEENA BIRBAL, J JANUARY 15, 2013 srb