Delhi High Court
Ranjit Singh Rawat vs Directorate General Border ... on 30 November, 2017
$~28.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6490/2017
RANJIT SINGH RAWAT ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Narender Bhandari with Mr. Rahul
Bora, Advocates
versus
DIRECTORATE GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCES AND
ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vivekanand Mishra, Senior Panel
Counsel for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 30.11.2017
1. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in the BSF on
18.12.1971, promoted to the post of Head Constable on 17.02.1992,
followed by a promotion given to him on the post of Sub-Inspector on
19.05.2004, whereafter he took premature retirement on 30.04.2006. On
22.09.2014, the respondent No.1/Directorate General, BSF issued a letter for
grant of first ACP to directly recruited Head Constables and second ACP to
Constables, in accordance with the original Scheme of ACP, 1999, without
insisting on the requirement of undergoing any pre-promotion courses.
Based on the aforesaid decision, the petitioner made a representation dt.
31.08.2015 to the respondents for grant of the Second Scheme of ACP w.e.f.
19.12.1995, to which he did not receive any reply. Thereafter, the petitioner
made several representations that remained unanswered, which has led to his
filing the present petition.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that having completed 24 years of
service on 17.12.1995 which was well before 09.8.1999, he is entitled for
the grant of the benefit of the ACP Scheme, 1999, which has already been
extended to several other similarly placed employees, but he has been
discriminated against, without any justification.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the case of the
petitioner for grant of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme was
considered by a Board of Officers on 17.09.2015, but his case had to be kept
pending for want of ACRs for the relevant period.
4. On a perusal of the documents filed by the respondents alongwith the
counter affidavit, it transpires that the respondents have extended the benefit
of upgradation of ACP to similarly placed employees as the petitioner,
namely, SI Anand Blallabh Pant and SI Chandra Singh Negi and they were
both recommended for grant of the second ACP in the pay scale of Rs.5500-
175-9000, w.e.f. 09.08.1999.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the case of the
aforesaid Sub Inspectors is on a different footing for the reason that unlike
them, the petitioner herein had completed 24 years of service only on
17.12.1995, which does not fall between the period, 09.08.1999 to
31.08.2008, as contemplated in the letter dated 22.9.2014 issued by the DG,
BSF and therefore, he has not been held entitled for grant of the second
ACP.
6. We may note that SI Anand Blallabh Pant and SI Chandra Singh
Negi, who had completed 24 years of service in the year 1995 and 1993
respectively, which was much before the period between 9.8.1999 to
31.8.2008 are similarly placed as the petitioner and both of them have
admittedly been granted the benefit of the second ACP w.e.f. 09.8.1999.
7. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the respondents states
that the respondents may be permitted to examine the case of the petitioner
afresh and take a decision for grant of the second ACP to him w.e.f.
19.12.1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner is agreeable to the said
suggestion.
8. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the present petition is
disposed of with directions issued to the respondents to decide the case of
the petitioner for grant of the second ACP in the relevant pay scale w.e.f.
19.12.1995, within a period of six weeks from today, under written
intimation to him.
9. The petition is disposed of. No orders as to costs.
HIMA KOHLI, J
REKHA PALLI, J
NOVEMBER 30, 2017
rkb/ap/av
