Delhi High Court
Insp/Gd Jagdish Prasad Jat vs Union Of India And Ors on 7 November, 2024
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 07.11.2024
+ W.P.(C) 15532/2024
INSP/GD JAGDISH PRASAD JAT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.N.L.Bareja, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC
with AC Ajay Pal, SI Shiv
Kumar Singh.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 65244/2024 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 15532/2024
2. Issue notice.
3. Mr.Syed Abdul Haseeb, the learned CGSC, appearing virtually
in another matter, is requested to accept the notice on behalf of the
respondents. A copy of this petition be handed over by the learned
counsel for the petitioner to the learned counsel for the respondents
within two days.
4. In the present petition, the petitioner‟s grievance is that he
successfully qualified the recruitment process for the post of Sub
Inspector/GD in the Central Reserve Police Force (in short, „CRPF‟)
through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (in
short, „LDCE‟) -2013 for unreserved vacancies. However, his
candidature was rejected during the verification of his testimonials,
due to an endorsement of "NQS", which was subsequently regularized
as leave on Half Pay (with no leave salary) in his service records, as
the same was considered as disqualification. The petitioner previously
approached this Court by way of Writ Petition, being W.P.(C)
1803/2014. The same was allowed by this Court‟s Judgment dated
19.08.2015, directing the respondents to issue an appointment letter to
the petitioner for the post of Sub Inspector/GD according to his merit
ranking. Consequently, the petitioner was appointed as an SI/GD with
effect from 28.03.2016, with seniority granted at par with his
batchmates from LDCE-2013, effective from 28.03.2014. However,
he was not given the pay and allowances, including increments, that
his batchmates received in the years 2015 and 2016. The petitioner
claims that in similar circumstances, this Court in its Judgment dated
30.08.2022 passed in W.P.(C) 4580/2021, titled SI/GD Ashok Kumar
v. Union of India & Anr, directed the respondents to grant all the
consequential benefits, including pay, allowances, and increments, at
par with batchmates to the petitioner therein.
5. The petitioner claims that thereafter, he has also been promoted
to the rank of Inspector/GD along with his batchmates as per seniority
dated 09.12.2022. However, despite the same, there is a disparity of
pay between the petitioner and his batchmates. The petitioner has filed
a representation with the respondents regarding the grievance,
however, the respondents have not acceded to the request of the
petitioner and the notice has not been replied to.
6. Keeping in view the nature of the grievances of the petitioner
and the relief sought, we are of the opinion that the respondents
should consider the present petition as a representation of the
petitioner and decide the same with a speaking order specially keeping
in view the Judgment of this Court in Ashok Kumar (supra), within a
period of twelve weeks from today. The decision on the representation
shall be communicated to the petitioner. In case the petitioner is
aggrieved by the decision taken on his representation, it would be
open to the petitioner to avail of such remedies as may be available to
him in law. All rights and contentions of both the parties are reserved.
7. The petition is disposed of with the above directions.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
NOVEMBER 7, 2024/Arya/DG
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
