Neelam Alias Neelam Paliwal vs Santosh And Others

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.