Kashmir Singh Guleria vs State of H.P. and Others

Kuldip Singh, J.—The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has confined the claim of the Petitioner for considering the case of the Petitioner for the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police from the date his juniors i.e. Respondents No. 5 and 6 were given the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police ignoring the claim of Petitioner.

The further case of the Petitioner is that he had filed O.A. No. 997 of 1992 in the erstwhile Tribunal, which was allowed on 17.6.2002. In pursuance of Tribunal order dated 17.6.2002, the Respondent No. 1 had promoted Petitioner as Dy. Superintendent of Police on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 27.8.1988 to 24.12.1988. On 24.12.1988, he was granted regular appointment as Dy. Superintendent of Police. The Respondents No. 5 and 6, namely, Sonam Choppal and Ram Lal were promoted as Additional Superintendent of Police in the year 1997. The Petitioner was senior to Sonam Choppal and Ram Lal and his case was wrongly ignored for the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police in the year 1997. The Petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30.4.2000.

The Respondents have taken the stand that Sonam Choppal and Ram Lal were rightly given the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police in the year 1997 in preference to Petitioner inasmuch as they were senior to the Petitioner as per seniority list of the year 1995. It has also been stated that in fact, Additional Superintendent of Police is not a promotional post, but it is only a placement given on the basis of seniority.

In so far as the contention of Respondent No. 1 that Sonam Choppal and Ram Lal were senior to Petitioner is concerned, it is only noticed to be rejected. The Tribunal vide order dated 17.6.2002 had ordered to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion from back date. The Petitioner has specifically pleaded in paragraph- 6.5 of the petition that he was promoted as Dy. Superintendent of Police on ad hoc basis from 27.8.1988 to 24.12.1988 and on 24.12.1988 he was granted regular promotion as Dy. Superintendent of Police in pursuance to order dated 17.6.2002 passed by the Tribunal. This part of the case of the Petitioner has not been specifically denied by Respondent No. 1 in corresponding para of the reply, rather in the reply it has been stated that arrears accrued to the Petitioner consequent upon backdating his promotion as Inspector and Dy. Superintendent of Police have been paid.

The rank of Additional Superintendent of Police is definitely superior to Dy. Superintendent of Police and Sonam Choppal and Ram Lal were given the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police, even though they were junior to the Petitioner. This is more particularly so when Respondent No. 1 has taken the stand that post of Additional Superintendent of Police is not a promotional post to Dy. Superintendent of Police.

The learned Additional Advocate General has relied notification dated 2.12.2003 Annexure R-2. The notification dated 2.12.2003 is with respect to ad hoc promotion only. It is the case of the Petitioner that he was regularly promoted as Dy. Superintendent of Police on 24.12.1988, which assertion of the Petitioner has not been denied by Respondent No. 1 in the reply. The fact remains that in view of regular promotion of the Petitioner with effect from 24.12.1988, he was senior to Sonam Chhopal and Ram Lal.

In these circumstances, the Petitioner has made out a case for consideration of his case for giving him the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police from the date his juniors Sonam Choppal and Ram Lal were given the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police by Respondent No. 1. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and Respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for giving him the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police from the date his juniors Sonam Choppal and Ram Lal were given the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police, within a period of two months from the date of supply of copy of this judgment by the Petitioner to the competent authority. The petition is disposed of on above terms.