Delhi High Court
Vijay Kumar vs Dgcrpf And Ors on 16 March, 2022
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: March 16, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 4403/2022 & CM APPLN. 13136/2022
VIJAY KUMAR ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.K. Mishra, Advocate
Versus
DGCRPF AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma & Mr.C.K. Bhatt,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. By this petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent to
promote the petitioner to the higher grade with all consequential benefits. In
addition, petitioner is also praying for costs of filing the writ petition.
2. Notice issued.
3. Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of
respondents.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that
petitioner had joined the services of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)
on 24.07. 1985 on the post of ASI/GD and is presently posted in Jammu and
Kashmir as ASI. Petitioner is aggrieved that though he is due for promotion
since the year 2012, however, he has not been promoted.
5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner has
submitted that petitioner had made various communications to the
respondent i.e. 13.03.2012; 16.05.2012 and 06.08.2012 regarding his
grievances on the promotion aspect. A representation is also stated to have
been made to the respondent-department on 20.05.2019. However,
petitioner has come to know that vide communication dated 20.02.2020,
Commandant-90 Battalion has directed the Company Commandant to
instruct the petitioner to raise this issue before the Battalion where he was
earlier posted, though petitioner has not received any official
communication in respect thereof. Thereafter, petitioner is said to have
made another representation on 08.07.2020, which is still pending
consideration by the respondents.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the batch mates of
petitioner have received two promotions, whereas petitioner has received
none and thereby, he is deprived of his fundamental rights.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that he
has been served with the advance notice of this petition only last night,
however, states that if any such representation is filed by the petitioner, shall
be considered and decided within the time frame as directed by this Court.
8. Upon hearing learned counsel representing both the sides and perusal
of material placed on record, we find petitioner has time and again made
several communications to the respondent-department for his promotion,
which is said to be due and pending since the year 2012.
9. In this view of the matter, petitioner is directed to make a fresh
representation to the respondent within two weeks. If any such
representation is received by the respondent, the same shall be considered
and decided by the respondents within six weeks of receipt thereof. The fate
of the representation be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks
thereafter. If any grievance still persists, the petitioner may prefer a statutory
appeal before the appropriate authority in accordance with the law.
10. With aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of. Pending
application is also disposed of as infructuous.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
(SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN)
JUDGE
MARCH 16, 2022
r
