Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAKESH KUMAR BHARADAUAJ versus STATE OF UP THRU' HOME SECY., AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rakesh Kumar Bharadauaj v. State Of Up Thru' Home Secy., And Others - WRIT - A No. 56638 of 2005 [2007] RD-AH 6451 (9 April 2007)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56638 of 2005

Rakesh Kumar Bharaduaj

Versus

State of U.P and others

Hon'ble V.K.Shukla,J.

Petitioner has approached this Court questioning the validity of the order dated 18.05.2005 passed by Inspector General of Policy Bareilly Region Bareilly rejected the representation of petitioner for grant of second promotional pay scale.

Brief background of the case is that petitioner has been recruited as police constable in the year 1978. Petitioner claim that after completing 24 years of  service he was entitled for second promotional pay scale. Petitioner has contended that he had been demanding for second promotional pay scale and as nothing was being done in this background he preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8279 of 2005 before this Court. This Court asked the authority concerned to consider the claim of the petitioner. Thereafter claim of the petitioner has been rejected. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ashtosh Kumar Mishra, contended with vehemence that in the present case claim of the petitioner for grant of second promotional pay scale has been arbitrarily rejected and entries which have been awarded were outcome of malafides and further on subsequent occasion great improvement  has been found as petitioner was praised and awarded Rs. 150 in the Inspection Report dated 03.03.2005 by the Joint Director (Prosecution) as such in this background petitioner submits that impugned order is liable to be quashed.

Sri K. K. Chand, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that claim of the petitioner has been considered within the parameter provided for and same has been rejected as such no interference be required.

After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging is to effect that pursuant to directives issued by this Court claim of the petitioner for grant of second promotional has been considered by the Inspector General of Police Barilly Zone Bareilly and it has been mentioned therein that grant of second promotional pay scale is covered as per the in term and condition of Government Order dated 02.12.2000  paragraph-4(3), same is admissible to the incumbent, whose services has been found to be satisfactory and satisfactory service has to be determined as per guideline provided for under Government Order dated 30.06.1993. Claim of the petitioner has been  considered within the parameter provided in the above referred two Government orders. For the incident 30.09.1997 petitioner has been censured on 30.03.1998 and for incident dated 12.06.2000 censor entry has awarded to the petitioner on 27.08.2001. Apart from this for the year 2002 and 2003 Annual confidential report (ACR) has been found to be bad and for this particular period integrity of the petitioner has not been certified. Merely because on one occasion petitioner has been awarded award in the Inspection Report dated 3rd March, 2003 same will not wipe out the earlier entry of the petitioner which has been recorded in service record. Object of assessing satisfactory service, is that continuance of service and work has been satisfactory. Second promotional pay scale is admissible to the incumbents who put have in 24 years of satisfactory service.  This is clearly referable to the conduct of entire period of service and not qua one time conduct at particular point of time.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement in the case of Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2000 (1) ESC 531 (All). Said judgment will not at all come to the rescue of the petitioner, inasmuch as in the aforesaid case only once adverse entry has been recorded  and in subsequent years good entries were there, in this background the said view has been taken.

Here in the present case second promotional pay scale is admissible to the incumbents who put have in 24 years satisfactory service as such opinion which has been formed by the concerned authority that petitioner did not have his credit satisfactory service is correct opinion and this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review will not re-appriciate the evidence.

Consequently present writ petition lacks substance and is dismissed.

09.04.2007

Dhruv                  


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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