Uttarakhand High Court
Neelam Alias Neelam Paliwal vs Santosh And Others on 18 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
SPECIAL APPEAL No.225 OF 2022
18TH JULY, 2022
Neelam alias Neelam Paliwal ...... Appellant
Vs.
Santosh and others ...... Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Shri Hemant Pant, learned counsel.
Counsel for the State : Shri K. N. Joshi, learned DAG
Counsel for respondent no.1. : Shri Sandeep Kothari.
JUDGMENT: (Per Shri Vipin Sanghi, Chief Justice)
Delay Condonation Application (IA/02/2022)
Learned counsels for the respondents fairly do
not oppose the application seeking condonation of delay.
Since the appellant had been pursuing the remedy earlier
by preferring a Special Appeal, and thereafter a review
petition was also filed, which too has been rejected,
accordingly, the application is allowed. Delay in filing the
appeal is hereby condoned.
2. The present appeal is directed against the
judgment dated 08.12.2021 passed by the learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.2213 of 2014. The appellant
herein was respondent no.4 in the writ petition, which was
preferred by respondent no.1 in the present appeal. The
learned Single Judge has allowed the said writ petition and
quashed the impugned order dated 15.09.2014, by which
several persons including the appellant herein was
promoted to the post of Inspector (Intelligence) from the
post of Sub-Inspector (Intelligence).
3. The fundamental premise on which the impugned
judgment has been rendered is that in the rank of Sub-
Inspector, the respondent no.1 herein-the writ petitioner,
was admittedly senior to the appellant herein and the
appellant had not completed ten years' regular service, and
did not have ten annual gradings of her performance at the
time of her consideration for promotion to the post of
Inspector (Intelligence), which was a pre-requisite under
the Rules. Even though the writ petitioner i.e. respondent
no.1 and the appellant, apart from others, were recruited in
the same process of recruitment, respondent no.1 herein
was appointed as Sub-Inspector on 08.11.2002; she was
sent for training to the Police Training College, Moradabad
on 10.11.2002; she completed her successful training on
29.09.2003 and she was appointed as a regular Sub-
Inspector on 28.02.2004. The appellant herein was
appointed on 30.07.2005 and she completed her practical
training on 30.08.2007 before her appointment as Sub-
Inspector. The respondent authorities deemed the service of
the appellant to commence from 2002 i.e. the same date as
the respondent no.1.
4. However, the appellant did not have the requisite
10 years' service experience or gradings when the
impugned promotion order was issued. The result of the
impugned order dated 15.09.2014 is that the promotion of
the appellant stands quashed on the ground that she did
not have the requisite 10 years' service experience and
gradings in the rank of Sub-Inspector (Intelligence).
5. The case of the writ petitioner was that since the
appellant was considered, even though not eligible, she i.e.
the writ petitioner could not be promoted when the
impugned order dated 15.09.2014 was issued.
2
6. We have heard learned counsel on either side at
some length. It appears to us that actual-and not notional
service experience and gradings were required under the
Rules for becoming eligible for promotion to the rank of
Inspector (Intelligence)
7. With a view to balance the equities and satisfy
the concerns of all the parties and put an end to this
dispute, we dispose of this appeal with the following
directions:-
i. The appellant having been appointed as Sub-
Inspector (Intelligence) on 30.07.2005, she shall be
deemed to have been promoted as Inspector
(Intelligence) on 30.07.2015 i.e. as soon as she
completes the qualifying service.
ii. So far as the respondent no.1 is concerned, her
candidature for the post of Inspector (Intelligence) be
considered on the premise that the respondent nos.2
to 4 did not fill up one of the vacancies in the said rank
on 15.09.2014 and, on that basis, if respondent no.1
is found fit for promotion, she shall be deemed to be
promoted with effect from 15.09.2014. In case the
respondent No.1 is promoted w.e.f. 15.09.2014, she
shall not be entitled to any arrears of pay. However,
her pay be refixed notionally in the promotional post
w.e.f. 15.09.2014 with all consequential benefits.
8. We make it clear that the quashing of the
impugned order dated 15.09.2014 does not affect the
promotion of others, who were promoted by the said
promotion order. We direct the respondent nos.3 & 4 to act
in terms of this order and issue the relevant orders within
one month from today.
3
9. We make it clear that no monetary recovery shall
be made from the appellant in the light of this decision,
since the appellant, as a matter of fact, has served as
Inspector (Intelligence) from 15.09.2014 onwards, and she
has not drawn any excess pay on account of her own fault.
Appeal stands disposed of in this case.
___________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
______________
RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dated: 18th July, 2022
R.Bisht
