Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Mahipal Singh & Others v. State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secy. Home Deptt. & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 19529 of 2002 [2006] RD-AH 20565 (5 December 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


   Court no. 7                                                        

         Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19529 of 2002

Mahi Pal Singh and others         versus       the State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition has been filed for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding opposite parties to grant retrospective one rank out of turn promotion to the petitioners for their active participation and showing extra ordinary gallantry in daring encounter with three hardened criminals/dacoits of the listed gang no. 180 known as Nirbhay Singh Goojar gang resulting in the instantaneous killing of Ram Singh Goojar, Jahar Singh Banjara and Banti alias Raja armed with deadly weapons and recovery of huge quantity of arms and ammunitions etc. at par with other similarly situated persons named above.   It has further been prayed that the order dated 20.3.2002 passed by DIG, Establishment by which their representation for out of turn promotion has also been rejected may be quashed.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners along with other members of the force participated in the daring encounter with the hardened criminals/dacoits of the listed gang no.180 known as Nirbhay Singh Goojar gang.

It is alleged that the Director General of Police U.P. recommended the names of three members of the police team namely, Sub-Inspector Ramesh Chandra Singh Yadav, Constable Prem Kishore and Constable Mahraj Singh for giving one rank out of turn promotion and promotion was granted to them but the petitioners who were similarly situated persons were neither recommended nor were considered by the Government.

Aggrieved, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.1254(s/s) of 1997 which was disposed of vide order dated 22.11.2001 directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners regarding grant of one rank out of turn promotion.

It is stated that in compliance of the judgment and order dated 22.11.2001 in Writ Petition No. 1254(s/s) of 1997 passed by this Court, the petitioners made representation before the authority concerned which was rejected vide order dated 20.3.2002, hence this writ petition.

The counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners also participated in the aforesaid brought day light encounter at par with other three members of the same police party who has been granted one rank out of turn promotion, hence the petitioners were also entitled to be granted one rank out of turn promotion along with their aforesaid three colleagues.

He also submits that the petitioners have played active roll by endangering their lives in the daring encounter for which they are entitled for the benefits of one rank out of turn promotion as has been given to others under the clauses of the Government Order dated 3.2.1994.

He further submits that Sub-Inspector Ramesh Chandra Singh Yadav, Constable Prem Kishore and Constable Mahraj Singh had played similar roll in the aforesaid encounter have been awarded with the cash award of Rs.20, 000/-, Rs.4, 000/- and Rs.8, 000/- respectively and they have also been granted one rank out of turn promotion but the petitioners have been meted out with the hostile discrimination in the matter of their entitlement of promotion.

He also submits that the representation of the petitioner dated 21.12.2001 has been rejected by the opposite parties out rightly without considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and the impugned order dated 20.3.2002 passed by the opposite parties is not in consonance with the observation made by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2001 and the same is based on erroneous consideration.

          The counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a certificate issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah recommending the case of the petitioners for out of turn promotion.

   The counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order dated 20.3.2002 is a well-reasoned order and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, as such no interference is required by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

   From perusal of the order dated 20.3.2002 it appears that the Inspector General, Kanpur Region, Kanpur, Deputy Inspector General Kanpur Region, Kanpur and Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah have reported that the petitioners along with other police personnel had not shown extraordinary courage and bravery in the encounter, hence they were entitled for cash award and the cash award were given to them.

            The relevant portion of the report is as under:-

^^mDr izLrko es Li"V :i ls mfYyf[kr Fkk fd eqBHksM+ ds nkSjku m0fu0 jes'k pUnz ;kno us viuh tku dh ijokg u djrs gq, cnek'kksa ij ncko cuk, j[kk vkSj cnek'kksa dh Qk;fjax jsat esa jgrs gq, lokZf/kd tksf[ke mBkdj tcjnLr Qk;fjax dh] ftlls 02 cnek'k ekjs x;sA m0fu0 Jh ;kno ds lkFk dkUlVsfcy uk0 iq0 izse fd'kksj ik.Ms; ,oa dkUl0 ih-,-lh- egjkt flag ;kno us dU/ks ls dU/kk feykdj iw.kZ fnysjh] QqrhZ vkSj Hkkjh tksf[ke mBkdj cnek'kksa dks ekj fxjk;k x;k FkkA izLrko ds ijh{k.k ijkUr mDr rhu iqfyl dfeZ;ksa dks muds vnE; lkgliw.kZ @ 'kkS;Z iw.kZ d`R; ds fy;s rRdkyhu iqfyl egkfuns'kd] m0iz0 us vuqeksnuksijkUr vkmV vkQ VuZ izksUufr iznku dh x;hA ;kphx.k ds lEcU/k esa iqfyl egkfujh{kd] dkuiqj tksu] iqfyl mi egkfujh{kd] dkuiqj ifj{ks= ,oa ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd] bVkok us lwfpr fd;k gS fd ;kphx.k lfgr eqBHksM+ esa lfEefyr vU; iqfyl dfeZ;ksa dh Hkwfedk vnE; lkgl ,oa 'kkS;Z dh Js.kh esa ugha jgh gSA bu yksxksa dh eqBHksM+ ds nkSjku Hkwfedk lkekU; Lrj dhs jgh Fkh] tks fd dsoy udn iqjLdkj ds ;ksX; Fkh ,oa mudh Hkwfedk ds vuqlkj mUgsa leqfpr udn iqjLdkj iznku dj fn;k x;k gSA**

                   It further appears from the order that the Sub-Inspector Ramesh Chandra Singh Yadav, Constables Prem Kishore and Maharaj Singh had shown extraordinary courage and bravery in an encounter and they had killed the members of Nirbhay Singh Gujjar gang and they were in fatal range and continuously exchanging the fire between the members of the gang and were given out of turn promotion.  

    The representation of the petitioners for being awarded out of turn promotion has been rejected holding that they have not shown any gallantry and extraordinary bravery in the aforesaid encounter. The findings of the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), U.P. are as under: -

           ^^ leLr vfHkys[kksa ds xgu ijh{k.kksijkUr ,oa lHkh igyqvksa ij O;kid fopkj&foe'kZ ds mijkUr lfefr bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWph gS fd eqBHksM esa dsoy m0fu0 jes'k pUnz ;kno ,oa dkUl0 uk0 iq0 izse fd'kkssj  o dkUl0 ih0,0lh0 egjkt flag dh gh fof'k"V Hkwfedk Fkh ,oa mDr rhuksa iqfyl dfeZ;ksa us gh cnek'kksa dh Qk;fjax jsUst esa vkdj viuh tku dks tksf[ke esa Mkyrs gq;s O;fDrxr vnE; lkg; o 'kkS;Z dk izn'kZu fd;k Fkk ftlds fy;s mUgsa ,d jSad vkmV vkQ VuZ iszkUufr iznku dh x;hA ;kphx.k Hkh ;n~fi eqBHksM esa lfEefyr Fks rFkkfr mudh Hkwfedk lg;ksxh ek= dh ,oa lkekU; fM;wVh ds fuoZgu ds vURkZxr jgh Fkh muds }kjk fdlh Hkh Lrj ij viuh tku dks tksf[ke esa aMkydj O;fDrxr vnE; lkgl o 'kksZ;Z dk izn'kZu ugha fd;k x;k Fkk A mYys[kuh; gS fd vkmV vkQ VuZ izksUufr ij fopkj gsrq eqMHksM ds nkSjku dehZ }kjk  O;fDrxr #Ik ls vnE; lkgl ,oa 'kksZ;Z @tksf[ke Hkjk izn'kZu fd;k tkuk vko';dgS A ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn }kjk Hkh fjV ;kfpdk la[;k&7789@98 vpy flag ;kno cuke m0iz0 jkT; o vU; esa fnuakd 4&7&2001 dks ikfjr fu.kZ; esa eqBHksM ds nkSjku O;fDrxr vnE; lkgl o 'kkS;Z izn'kZu ds vk/kkj ij gh vkmV vkQ VuZ izksUufr fd;s tkus dh fof/k lEer ekuk gS A izR;kosnu esa vafdr ;g dFku Hkh fujk/kkj gS fd ;kphx.k ls de lkgfld d`R; djus okys dfri; vU; iqfyl dfeZ;ksa dks vkmV vkQ VuZ izksUur iznku dh x;h gS A okLrfodrk ;g gS fd ftu iwqfyl dfeZ;ksa dks vkmV vkQ VuZ izksUufr dh x;h gS A muds d`R; O;fDrxr vnE; lkgl o 'kkS;Z dh Js.kh esa ik;s x;s Fks tc fd ;kphx.k ds d`R; mudh lkekU; fM;wVh ds fuoZgu ds vURkZxr jgs gS A ;kphx.k lfgr dqy 58 iqfyl @ih0,0lh0 dehZ mDr eqBHksM easa lfEefyr Fks ijUrq dsoy mi fujh{kd uk0iq0 jes'k pUnz ;kno] dkUl0 uk0iq0 izzse fd'kksj ,oa dkUl0 ih0,0lh0 egjkt flag }kjk gh viuh tku dks vU;Ur tksf[ke esa Mkydj O;fDrxr vnE; lkgl] mRd`"V 'kksS;Z dk izn'kZu fd;k x;k Fkk A

mijksDr of.kZr rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh leh{kk ds mijkUr eS bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWpk gwW fd eqBHksM ds nkSjku ;kphx.k ds d`R; dks lfefr us '''kklukns'k fnukad 3&2&1994 ds rgr vnE; lkgl ,oa 'kkS;Z dh Js.kh esa u ikrs gq, mUgsa vkmV vkQ VuZ izksUufr dh laLrqfr ugha dh gS A ftlls lger gksdj iqfyl egkfuns'kd] m0iz0 us Hkh vuqeksfnr fd;k gS A vr,o ;kphx.k dh rjQ ls izLrqr izR;kosnu cyghu gS A ;kphx.k izksUufr ds ik= ugha gS A izR;kosnu fnukad 21&12&2001 vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gS A

                           g0 vLi"V

                                   ¿ jkev/kkj �?


                     iqfyl mi egkfujh{kd LFkkiuk

                                   m0 iz0 !^^

It is apparent from the impugned order that the petitioners had not shown any extraordinary courage and bravery putting their lives in danger. Merely because the petitioners were members of the police party which had participated in the encounter do not entitle them in the circumstances, for grant of out turn promotion in view of the G.O. dated 3.2.94 and the guide lines which provide that only those police personnel will be entitled for out of turn promotion who show extraordinary courage, bravery and gallantry putting their lives in danger. As regards certificate issued by the SSP, Etawah on which the petitioners have placed reliance suffice is it to say that Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah was not a member of the police party in the aforesaid encounter as such certificate given by him is of no help to the petitioners in view of the facts that appear from the records.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dated 5.12.2006





Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.