Harish Chandra Yati vs Union Of India & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 554 Del

$~6.
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+        WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) No. 569/2016
                                         Date of decision: 25th January, 2016
         HARISH CHANDRA YATI                               ..... Petitioner
                       In person.
                       versus
         UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                      ..... Respondents
                       Through Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC, Mr. Jitender
                       Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Shivam Chanana & Ms.
                       Pooja Mishra, Advocates for respondent No. 1-
                       UOI.
         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):

         We have heard Mr. Harish Chandra Yati, who appears in person, but

regret our inability to agree with his submissions.

2.       The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police on 7th

July, 1980. The petitioner was awarded punishment of censure on 9 th

August, 1991. In view of the said order of punishment, the petitioner's

name was not included in promotion list 'F' (Exe.) prepared on the basis of

the recommendation of the regular Departmental Promotion Committee

(DPC) held on 12th August, 1994. The petitioner subsequently filed OA

No. 41/1995 as certain adverse remarks in ACR for the period 1 st April,

1990 to 31st March, 1991 had been toned down. Pursuant to the directions

issued in the said OA, the petitioner's case was reconsidered by the review

DPC in their meeting held on 22nd September, 1995. The review DPC,

W.P. (C) No. 569/2016                                                  Page 1 of 3
 however, rejected the petitioner's claim. Thereafter, the petitioner again

approached the tribunal by way of OA No. 1912/1995. The said OA was

also dismissed.

3.       The petitioner was found fit and his name was included in list 'F'

[Inspector (Exe.)] with effect from 9th November, 2001 and was granted

promotion as an Inspector with effect from 13th November, 2001.

4.       After working in the said post of Inspector for more than ten years,

the petitioner made a representation dated 14th November, 2011 seeking

ante-dated promotion to the post of Inspector with effect from 2nd July,

1997. The case of the petitioner was that his juniors, 38 in number, were

promoted with effect from 2nd July, 1997, but his case for promotion was

not considered. The contention is that by that time, the embargo and

adverse consequences of punishment of censure would not be applicable.

5.       To explain and meet the delay and bar of limitation, the petitioner

professes ignorance and infamilarity that his juniors were promoted in the

year 1997. Their promotions, it is stated, were unknown and unheard till

the petitioner had moved an application under the Right to Information

Act, 2005 and details were furnished.

6.       The tribunal, in our opinion, was right not to believe and accept the

petitioner's claim to enlightenment in 2011.        The assertion per se is

unbelievable and shallow. The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the Delhi

Police, we perceive and accept was aware of the promotions, which had

W.P. (C) No. 569/2016                                                 Page 2 of 3
 been granted to his juniors with effect from 2nd July, 1997. The petitioner,

it is noticed, has been litigating and had twice in 1994 and then in 1995

filed petitions before the tribunal. He was conscious that the punishment

had effected his promotion.

7.       The said 38 Sub-Inspectors were given promotion with effect from

12th August, 1994 on ad hoc basis, which were regularised with effect from

2nd July, 1997 vide order dated 28th February, 1998. In fact, the petitioner's

case was also considered by the DPC held on 12th August, 1994, but the

petitioner was declared unfit due to adverse remarks in his ACRs for the

period 1st April, 1990 to 31st March, 1991. It is difficult to imagine and

believe that the petitioner in these circumstances was not aware that 38

Sub-Inspectors, who were junior to him, were promoted, as his case was

rejected by the DPC held on the said date. Review DPC, as noticed above,

was held on 22nd September, 1995 pursuant to directions issued by the

tribunal in OA No. 41/1995 in which again the petitioner's case was

assessed as unfit.

8.       There is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is
dismissed.


                                              SANJIV KHANNA, J.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J. JANUARY 25, 2016 VKR