Delhi High Court
Rajkumar vs Dg Cisf & Ors. on 9 January, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~36 to 46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 09.01.2025
(36)+ W.P.(C) 4703/2021
MUKESH SINGH RAJPUT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.P.Sureshan, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Farman Ali, Adv. with AC
G.S.Rathore, Insp., Yespal,,
CISF.
(37)+ W.P.(C) 4721/2021
JAI PRAKASH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.P.Sureshan, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF
HOME & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Gigi C.George, Mr.Sunil
Kumar, Advs., for UOI.
Mr.Raj Kumar, AC/CISF,
Mr.Devenda, SI/CISF, Mr.Amit
Kumar, SI/CISF, Mr.Rahul
Sinha, SI/CISF.
(38)+ W.P.(C) 4751/2021
BHUPINDER PRASAD YADAV .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.P.Sureshan, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRATARY MINISTRY OF
HOME & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Neeraj, SPC, UOI with
Mr.Vedansh Anand, GP with
Mr.Soumyadip Chakraborty,
Mr.Sachin Saraswat, Advs.
Mr.S.K.Misra, Astt. Commd.,
SI Amit Kumar, SI Devendra
Prahlad, Constable Palve
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL W.P.(C) 4703/2021 and connected matters Page 1 of 8
Signing Date:14.01.2025
19:15:32
Nilesh, CISF, UOI.
(39)+ W.P.(C) 4758/2021
G.V S NARAYANA AND OTHERS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.P.Sureshan, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRATARY MINISTRY OF
HOME & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Virender Pratap Singh
Charak, Ms.Shubhra Parashar,
Mr.P.P.Singh, Advs. for UOI.
(40)+ W.P.(C) 4807/2021
MD. MOFIZUDDIN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.P.Sureshan, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRATARY MINISTRY OF
HOME & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.S.K.Misra, Astt. Commd.,
SI Amit Kumar, SI Devendra
Prahlad, Constable Palve
Nilesh, CISF, UOI.
(41)+ W.P.(C) 14860/2022
A MURALI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.P.Sureshan, Adv.
versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL
SECURITY FORCE AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Vijay Joshi, Mr.Shubham
Chaturvedi, Mr.Hemant Goyal,
Advs.
(42)+ W.P.(C) 15776/2022
RAJKUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.P.Sureshan, Adv.
Versus
DG CISF & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Vikrant N.Goyal, Mr.Aditya
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL W.P.(C) 4703/2021 and connected matters Page 2 of 8
Signing Date:14.01.2025
19:15:32
Shukla, Advs.
Ms.Uma Prasuna Bachu, SPC,
UOI.
(43)+ W.P.(C) 17517/2022
SURESH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.P.Sureshan, Adv.
versus
DG CISF & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms.Archana Gaur, CGSC with
Ms.Ridhima Gaur,
Mr.R.Baliyaan, Advs. with
Mr.Shivakant, AC, CISF,
Mr.Atal Kumar, SI, CISF.
(44)+ W.P.(C) 17523/2022
GAIKWAD SOMNATH DADAJI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.P.Sureshan, Adv.
versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL, CISF AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajkumar Yadav, SPC with
Mr.Vaibhav Bhardwaj, Adv. for
UOI.
(45)+ W.P.(C) 17539/2022
NARESH KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.P.Sureshan, Adv.
versus
DG CISF & ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
(46)+ W.P.(C) 11968/2022
SANJAY KUMAR AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Ms.Saahila Lamba, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Satya Ranjan, SPC, UOI
with Mr.Kautilya Birat, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL W.P.(C) 4703/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 8
Signing Date:14.01.2025
19:15:32
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners inter alia
praying that they are entitled to the grant of ACP/MACP benefits
by reckoning their services to be rendered with effect from their
date of appointment in the rank of Followers (Group 'D' post)
instead of the date of remustration.
2. A similar issue has been decided by this Court in a batch of
petitions including in Om Prakash & Ors. v. UOI & Ors., NC
2015:DHC:2214-DB, vide Judgment dated 05.03.2015 by
holding as under:
"14. The only issue which now arises is what
is the effect of some of the writ petitioners,
such as Om Prakash, the writ petitioner of
W.P.(C) No.388/2015, being re-mustered to
the rank of Naik or in the cadre of driver trade
or in the cadre of radio operator. As per
learned counsel for the respondents the 24
year period of service has to be reckoned from
the date they were re-mustered and not from
the date they joined service initially.
15. Hitherto fore, between the rank of a
Constable and a Head Constable there were
two posts of Lance Naik and Naik, which posts
were subsequently abolished and merged with
that of a Head Constable.
16. Now, the department itself is not
considering, the appointment given to
Constables on re-mustering as Naik or a
Lance Naik as a case of promotion, and thus
we see no logic to reckon 24 years‟ service
from the dates noted hereinabove when some
of the petitioners and the late husbands of the
writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No.1717/2015 were
re-mustered.
17. The ACP Scheme is clear. It envisages
first ACP benefit after 12 years‟ service was
rendered and the second benefit after 24
years‟ service was rendered if within the first
twelve years no promotion could be earned
and in 24 years‟ service a second promotion
could not be earned. Since all petitioners and
late husbands of the writ petitioners of
W.P.(C) No.1717/2015 had rendered more
than 12 years service, reckoned whether with
effect from their initial service or from the date
they were re-mustered, when the ACP Scheme
was introduced in the year 1999 all were
granted the benefit of the first financial
upgradation with effect from the year 1999
(such who earned a first promotion after 1999
were given anti-dated scales with effect from
the year 1999) and when their claims for
financial upgradation on completing 24 years
service came up, the department only raised
one issue : of they not having undergone the
pre-promotional course which was essential to
be successfully undertaken to earn a
promotion. As per all these persons they were
denied an opportunity to undergo the pre-
promotional course because the department
had posted them at places from where they
could not be relieved; and none of them had
anything to do with their posting orders. This
aspect has now been taken care of by the two
office orders dated October 27, 2014 and
February 16, 2015.
18. We note that all the petitioners have
completed the twenty four years of service
though they have not undergone the pre-
promotional courses. It is the case of the
petitioners that they have never been detailed
for the said pre-promotional courses by the
respondents. Thus they are squarely covered
by the clarification issued by the respondents
vide its clarification dated February 16, 2015.
19. The writ petitions are accordingly
allowed issuing a direction to the respondents
to grant second ACP benefits to the petitioners
and late husbands of writ petitioners of
W.P.(C) No.1717/2015 with effect from the
date they completed twenty four years service
reckoned from the date of initial appointment.
The mandamus would be subject to the
petitioners and late husbands of writ
petitioners of W.P.(C) No.1717/2015 being
otherwise found fit for promotion."
3. Review Petitions thereafter filed, also came to be decided by a
Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 29.01.2016
reported as 2016:DHC:699-DB, by observing as under:
"13. We have considered the rival
contentions of the parties and on going
through the documents and OM relied
upon by the parties, it is clear that
clarification No.4,5 and 6 relied upon by
the respondents are not applicable in the
present case whereas clarification No.
1 squarely covers the case of the
petitioners for the reason the petitioners
were appointed as Constable (GD) in the
CRPF and were thereafter remustered as
Naik RO. However, in the year 1997 the
post of Naik RO was merged in the rank
of Head Constable (RO) and as per
clarification No.1 of DOPT‟s OM dated
10.02.2002 it has been clearly spelt out
„since the benefit of upgradation under
the ACP Scheme are to be allowed in the
existing hierarchy, the mobility under
the ACP Scheme shall be in the
hierarchy existing after merger of pay
scales by ignoring the promotion. An
employee who got promoted from lower
pay scale to higher pay scale as a result
of promotion before merger of pay scale
shall be entitled for upgradation under
the ACP Scheme ignoring the said
promotion as otherwise he would be
placed in a disadvantageous position
vis-a vis the fresh entrant in the merged
grade.‟ Thus a bare perusal of the
above clarification clearly shows that
upgradation under the ACP Scheme are
to be allowed in the existing hierarchy.
After 1997 the hierarchy prevalent in
CRPF is that of Constable (RO) and then
Head Constable (RO). As of today there
is no post of Naik RO. Not only this, the
clarification further clarifies that an
employee who got promoted from a
lower pay scale to a higher pay scale as
a result of promotion before merger of
pay scales shall be entitled for
upgradation under the ACP Scheme
ignoring the said promotion. Meaning
thereby that in the present case the
petitioner was appointed as Constable
(GD) and was thereafter re-mustered as
Naik RO in a higher pay scale but
however, in year 1997 the post of Naik
RO was merged with that of Head
Constable (RO). Therefore, as per the
clarification the re-mustering to the rank
of Naik RO is required to be ignored for
grant of ACP. As far as the judgements
relied upon by the respondents is
concerned the same do not deal with the
issue in hand and therefore are of no
consequence to the present case."
4. Aggrieved by the above, the respondents challenged the said
judgments before the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave
Petitions including SLP(C) 23243/2016 titled Union of India &
Ors. v. Shish Ram, which have now been dismissed by the
Supreme Court vide Order dated 12.12.2024.
5. In view thereof, the present petitions are disposed of in terms of
the Judgment dated 05.03.2015 passed by this Court including in
Om Prakash v. UOI & Ors. (supra) read with the Judgment
dated 29.01.2016 passed in the Review Petition filed in the said
Writ Petition and the Order dated 12.12.2024 passed inter alia in
SLP(C) 23243/2016 referred to hereinabove. The respondents
shall pass consequential orders thereon within a period of 12
weeks from today and release the benefit that the petitioners are
entitled to in terms thereof within the said period.
6. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
JANUARY 9, 2025
RN/SJ
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
