AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -
a)That the Respondents may kindly be directed and commanded to consider the case of the Applicant for grant of Out-Of-Turn Promotion for his outstanding and exemplary performance of duties for combating militancy within the State of Jammu & Kashmir by the Home Department in Selection Committee headed by the Chief Secretary (with Director General of Police & Home Secretary as consideration and Members) for recommendation for approval of Chief Minister, as per the Government Order No. Home 559 (P) of 2007 dated 29.11.2007;
b)That the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to award such other relief (s) as may be considered appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case;
c)The Applicant be also awarded the cost of litigation.
The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows: -
The brief facts of the case, as pleaded by the applicant, are that the applicant, Subash Thakur, was initially enrolled as a Constable in the Jammu and Kashmir Police on 02.12.1994. During the course of his service, he was transferred to the Doda-Kishtwar-Ramban Range and subsequently served in different capacities/establishments of the Police Department, Central Administrative Tribunalincluding the CID setup. The applicant claims that during his service, particularly while associated with the CID and deployed in militancy-affected areas, he rendered exemplary services in anti-militancy operations and provided vital intelligence inputs which resulted in successful operations against militants.
The case set up by the applicant is that, keeping in view the prevailing militancy situation in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government had evolved a policy for rewarding police personnel exhibiting exceptional performance on the anti-militancy front. Reference has been made to Circular No. 14-GR of 1990 dated 06.03.1990 and Government Order No. Home-3(P) of 2000 dated 06.01.2000, whereby a procedure was prescribed for grant of Out-of-Turn Promotion in exceptionally deserving cases. Under the said procedure, consistently exceptional performance on the anti-militancy front could be considered for Out-of-Turn Promotion on the basis of the requisite dossier/citation, service record, vigilance clearance and recommendation of the competent authorities.
The aforesaid procedure was subsequently modified by Government Order No. Home-559(P) of 2007 dated 29.11.2007. Under the modified procedure, the Director General of Police was made the competent authority for grant of Out-of-Turn Promotion up to the rank of Inspector on the recommendations of the Police Establishment Board, whereas promotions from Inspector to Deputy Superintendent of Police were required to be considered by the Home Department Selection Committee. The policy stipulated that such promotions were to be granted judiciously and only to genuine and deserving members of the Police Force.
In support of his claim, the applicant has relied upon various instances of his service record. He states that while serving as Constable Subash Singh No. 908/J, he apprehended a hardcore militant at Simbal Camp, Jammu, along with a substantial quantity of arms and ammunition, for which he was awarded a Commendation Certificate Class-I along with cash reward vide Certificate dated 15.10.1997. He has further relied upon appreciation of his services by the Army authorities for his intelligence-related contribution to an operation conducted in Thakrai area on 06.05.2003.
The applicant further pleads that while posted as Selection Grade Constable No. 1098/CID, he developed and supplied vital intelligence regarding the presence of militants in Thakrai area of Sector Kishtwar. Acting upon the inputs, 11 Rashtriya Rifles conducted an operation during the intervening night of 05/06.05.2003, resulting in elimination of two militants and recovery of arms and other material. The CID Range Headquarters, Batote thereafter recommended that the applicant be suitably encouraged for his devotion and dedication to duty. The applicant was subsequently granted cash rewards in recognition of his work.
The applicant has also relied upon another incident of the year 2006. According to him, his efforts and intelligence inputs contributed to the surrender of two militants of the HUJI outfit before the Army and local Police. His efforts were appreciated by the Officer Commanding, 21 CIIU, Batote, and the Senior Superintendent of Police, CID CI Jammu recommended that he be suitably rewarded for his contribution.
The grievance of the applicant is that despite the aforesaid commendations, rewards and his contribution towards anti-militancy operations, his case was never processed for grant of Out-of-Turn Promotion under the applicable Government policy. He claims that similarly deserving police personnel were intended to be rewarded under the policy and, therefore, failure of the respondents to consider his case amounts to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment. h) The applicant states that he submitted a representation dated 30.05.2019 seeking consideration of his case for Out-of-Turn Promotion. The matter was subsequently forwarded to the Home Department, Government of Jammu and Kashmir, and a detailed report was sought from the Director General of Police. The applicant thereafter submitted another representation dated 29.09.2019 seeking appropriate action upon his claim. According to him, despite these representations, his claim for Out-of-Turn Promotion was not considered, compelling him to approach this Tribunal.
The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
The respondents have contested the Original Application by filing their written statement. At the outset, they have raised preliminary objections that the applicant has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and has allegedly suppressed and misrepresented material facts. It is further pleaded that no constitutional, statutory or legal right of the applicant has been infringed and, therefore, the Original Application is not maintainable and deserves dismissal.
On merits, the respondents state that the matter was verified from CID Headquarters, J&K. As per communication No. CID/Legal/OA-61/611/2022/377 dated 02.03.2023, the applicant was transferred to the CID Wing vide PHQ Order No. 1599 of 2001 dated 24.04.2001 and remained posted in the CID setup, Batote, from May 2001 to June 2005. Thereafter, during the period from 20.07.2005 to 14.12.2007, he remained posted in CID Jammu and was further deployed in CID CI Sector Ramban and Sector Kishtwar.
The respondents acknowledge that during his deployment in CID CI Sector Ramban/Kishtwar, the applicant generated various intelligence inputs which were forwarded to the then SSP, CID CI Jammu for further action. It is also acknowledged that SSP CID Range Headquarters, Batote, vide communication dated 04.06.2003, recommended that the applicant be encouraged for providing vital information regarding the presence of militants in Thakrai area of Sector Kishtwar. Likewise, the efforts of the applicant, which contributed to the surrender of two militants belonging to the HUJI outfit, were appreciated by the concerned Army authority.
The specific stand of the respondents, however, is that the aforesaid acts resulted only in recommendations for suitable encouragement/cash reward and that the applicant was never recommended for Out-of-Turn Promotion on the basis of any anti-militancy operation. In respect of the 2006 incident also, the SSP CID CI Jammu had forwarded a recommendation to the DIG CID Jammu Zone for grant of a suitable cash reward to the applicant and not for Out-of-Turn Promotion.
The respondents have further relied upon communication No. Pros/DPOK/22/18728-29 dated 19.11.2022 issued by SSP District Kishtwar. According to the said communication, the applicant remained posted in District Kishtwar on two occasions, namely from 2010 to 2013 and again from 2016 onwards. During his first tenure, he was awarded four Commendation Certificates Class-III with cash reward of Rs.100/- on each occasion, whereas during his subsequent tenure he was awarded one Commendation Certificate Class-III with a cash reward of Rs.100/-. According to the respondents, these rewards related to discharge of routine duties and did not constitute such outstanding performance as would justify recommendation for Out-of-Turn Promotion.
It is further asserted that during his postings in District Kishtwar, the applicant did not participate in or remain involved in any anti-militancy/insurgency operation on the basis of which the District Police could recommend his case for Out-of-Turn Promotion. The respondents have, therefore, termed the applicant’s claim to the contrary as misleading and a misrepresentation of the factual position.
The respondents accordingly maintain that although the applicant had rendered services for which he was appropriately appreciated and rewarded from time to time, no competent authority had recommended his case for Out-of-Turn Promotion under the applicable policy. They contend that the relief sought by the applicant is based upon surmises and conjectures and that he has failed to establish any enforceable right to claim such promotion. On these grounds, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant seeking a direction to the respondents to consider and grant him Out-of-Turn Promotion on the ground of his alleged outstanding and exemplary performance in anti-militancy operations, in terms of the policy governing such promotions.
Central Administrative Tribunal6. The case of the applicant is that during his service in the Jammu and Kashmir Police, particularly while posted with the CID, he provided intelligence inputs and assisted the security forces in various anti-militancy operations. He has relied upon commendation certificates, appreciation letters and cash rewards granted to him from time to time and contends that his services deserved consideration for Out-of-Turn Promotion.
The respondents, while not disputing that the applicant had provided certain intelligence inputs and had been appreciated/rewarded for the same, have specifically pleaded that he was never recommended for Out-of-Turn Promotion on the basis of any anti-militancy operation. The recommendations made in his favour were for encouragement or grant of suitable cash reward and not for Out-of-Turn Promotion.
The policy governing Out-of-Turn Promotion makes it clear that such promotion is not a matter of right or a normal mode of advancement in service. It is an exceptional incentive intended for genuine and deserving members of the Police Force exhibiting consistently exceptional performance on the anti-militancy front. The prescribed procedure requires consideration of the recommendation of the competent authority along with the dossier/citation, APR resume, vigilance clearance and the extent of deviation from seniority.
In the present case, although the material on record indicates that the applicant performed his assigned duties and received appreciation and cash rewards on certain occasions, there is nothing on record to establish that his performance was assessed by the competent authority as being of such exceptional or exemplary nature as to warrant Out-of-Turn Promotion. More importantly, there is no recommendation of the competent authority proposing the applicant for such promotion. On the contrary, the respondents have categorically stated that the recommendations made in his favour were for suitable cash rewards and that he had never been recommended for Out-of-Turn Promotion.
Mere grant of commendation certificates, appreciation or cash rewards cannot, by itself, confer a right upon an employee to claim Out-of-Turn Promotion. The assessment as to whether a particular act constitutes consistently exceptional performance deserving such promotion falls within the domain of the competent authorities under the applicable policy. This Tribunal cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the competent authority and direct grant of an exceptional promotion merely on the basis of appreciation or rewards earned during service.
It is also pertinent that the acts principally relied upon by the applicant relate to the years 1997, 2003 and 2006, whereas the applicant raised his claim for Out-of-Turn Promotion through representations only in the year 2019. Such a belated claim, particularly in the absence of any contemporaneous recommendation for Out-of-Turn Promotion, cannot create an enforceable right in favour of the applicant.
In view of the foregoing, we find no arbitrariness or illegality in the action of the respondents warranting interference by this Tribunal. The applicant has failed to establish that he was recommended for Out-of-Turn Promotion or that he possessed any vested or enforceable right to the same.
Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed, being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.