Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHIV KUMAR SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shiv Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 22268 of 1999 [2007] RD-AH 9685 (21 May 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. 26

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22268 of 1999

Shiv Kumar Singh

Vs

State of U.P. & Others

~~~~~

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The petitioner is a Sub-Inspector in Police Department. He claims out of turn promotion by means of this writ petition and prays that the respondents be issued a writ of mandamus directing them to give him out of turn promotion from the post of Sub-Inspector to the post of Inspector in the Police Department.  

The claim of the petitioner is based upon Government Order dated 10.2.1994 issued by the State Government for giving out of turn promotion to those employees of Police Department who have shown bravery and exemplary courage during the course of their duty. It is stated by the petitioner that he has received several complimentary certificates and awards for his work of bravery on several occasions in arresting notorious criminals by putting his life in danger, as such he claims out of turn promotion. The complimentary certificates and awards received by him are as under:

^^1- vkj-vkj- ua0 5] o"kZ 1984&85 iqjLdkj :- 040@& M~k- fd'kqu lk- dqjkSyh Fkkuk dksrokyh ckjkcadh dks dRy djus vk;s vfHk;qDrksa esa ls vfHk;qDr lqUnj iky] jes'k pUnz lk- cyok Fkkuk egewnkckn tuin lhrkiqj dks 2&2 dkjrwl ds lkFk cUnh cuk;kA

2- vkj- vkj- ua- 11] iqjLdkj :- iqjLdkj :- 25@& fnukad 24@25&3&88 dks jkf= esa MdSrksa dh ;kstuk cukrs gq, 'kkfrj vfHk;qDr rstk catkjk dks Hkkjh ek=k esa vkElZ ,oa vE;wfulu ds lkFk fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;kA**

The petitioner alleges to have made representations to the respondents for being given out of turn promotion but no heed was paid to the same by the respondents. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 19787 of 1998, Shiv Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and others, which was disposed of by judgment and order dated 29.5.1998 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for out of turn promotion in accordance with the guide lines contained in Government Order dated 10.2.1994. Pursuant to the order and judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 19787 of 1998 respondent no. 3 sought recommendations from the Zonal Inspector General of Police and the Regional Inspector General of Police who recommended the Inspector General of Police, Gorakhpur Zone, Gorakhpur for out of turn promotion to the petitioner on the ground that he has been given various complimentary certificates and awards during his service period and had arrested many hardened criminals without caring for his life.

It is alleged that despite the aforesaid recommendations of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gorakhur Zone, the Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Allahabad (respondent no. 3) by his order dated 15.9.1998 has rejected the representation of the petitioner for out of turn promotion which is impugned to the writ petition.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent no. 3, without considering the recommendations of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gorakhpur Zone, Gorakhpur dated 13.5.1998 as well as without application of mind, has rejected the representation of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 15.9.1998.

Ram Kishun Kewat was notorious and hardened criminal of district Gorakhpur. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur had constituted a task force including the petitioner as one of the members for arresting Ram Kishun Kewat. The special task force wiped out the Ram Kishun Kewat gang. Sri Ashwani Kumar Rai and Sri Dina Nath Yadav who were also members of the task force constituted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur for wiping out the Ram Kishun Kewat gang have been given out of turn promotion from Constable to Head Constable denying the same to the petitioner from the post of Sub-Inspector to Inspector.

There was another notorious and hardened criminal in northern  India by the name of  Shree Prakash Shukla. An award of Rs. Two Lacs was over his head. For wiping out his gang also the State had constituted special task force. The D.I.G., Gorakhpur had constituted a special task force  for watching his activities. The petitioner who was also a member of the said special task force collected information from the beloved of Shree Prakash Shukla in risky circumstances by taping their conversations. The special task force on the basis of the information located the hide out of the gangster and killed him in an encounter.

It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Senior Superintendent of Police has admitted that without the co-operation of the special task force constituted by the D.I.G., Gorakhpur of which the petitioner was one of the members it  would not have been possible to wipe out the gang of Shree Prakash Shukla. It is further stated that the Director General of Police complimented the D.I.G., Gorakhpur and his team. The D.I.G., Gorakhpur has also complimented  and awarded Rs. 10,000/- cash on behalf of the State Government to the members of the team and and has given a categorical finding in its recommendation that the operation to wipe out the gang succeeded as the petitioner had collected information by putting  his life in danger.        

It is further stated that some of the officers who were also part of the operation of Sri Prakash Shukla gang were given out of turn promotion denying the same to the petitioner for the same cause arbitrarily and discriminately. He has cited the cases of Sri Avinash Mishra, Sri B.P.S.Chauhan, Sri Niaz Ahmad and two drivers and four commandos who have been given out of turn promotion while similar role was played by the petitioner in wiping out Sri Prakash Shukla gang but has been denied out of turn promotion for the same cause.

It is apparent from the impugned order that out of turn promotion has been given to those who had shown extraordinary courage and bravery in various operations and had performed their duty by endangering their lives for protecting the lives of public at large. Dealing with the case of the petitioner it has been observed by the Inspector General of Police (Establishment) that arresting of criminals and recovery of arms and ammunition is general duty of the petitioner which has been performed by him; that collection of information from the beloved of Shree Prakash Shukla was not a case of exemplary courage and extraordinary bravery in the main operation itself and thus he has not played any important role in the encounter/wiping out Ram Kishan Kewat and Shree Prakash Shukla gangs. After perusal of records respondent no. 3 has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner had not shown any extraordinary courage and bravery in the aforesaid operations. In the complimentary certificates and awards received by the petitioner mention of only gathering important information from risky places and surroundings has been made, there is no mention of playing risky role by him in collecting the important information. Gathering important information is part of duty of the petitioner. Even though he was part and parcel of the aforesaid operations, out of turn promotion is given when one or more police personnel of the party show exemplary courage and bravery endangering their lives for others in the encounter for making the operation a success.

It may also be stated that the document referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner as Government Order dated 10.2.1994 is in fact not a Government Order but a routine circular letter/office order informing of the guide lines for consideration of out of turn promotions on the basis of G.O. dated 3.2.1994 which lays down the guide lines for consideration of  out of turn promotion. Merely because the petitioner has been awarded complimentary letters and awards in risky circumstances will not come in the category of extraordinary courage and bravery endangering his life for other members of the task force in the encounter/operations. Respondent no. 3 has rightly observed: -

^^7& iz'uxr izdj.k esa iqfyl egkfujh{kd] xksj[kiqjtksu] xksj[kiqj us viuh vk[;k esa mYys[k fd;k gS fd ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd] xksj[kiqj ,oa iqfyl mi egkfujh{kd] xksj[kiqj ifj{ks= dh fVIi.kh] mifujh{kd dh pfj= iath 'kklukns'k fnukad 3-2-94 esa fufgr izko/kku ds ifj'khyu ds mijkUr ;g ik;k x;k fd mi fujh{kd us vius lkekU; drZO;ksa ds fuoZgu ds ifjis{; esa iqjLdkj vftZr fd;s gSa vFkok mRre izfof"V vftZr dh gSA mDr iqjLdkj o mRre izfof"V iznku djrs le; muds vkys[k esa tksf[ke Hkh dk;Z djus dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha gSA iz'kfLr i= esa tksf[ke Hkh dk;Z djus dk dksbZ mYys[k iz'kfLr i= esa tksf[ke Hkjs LFkku ls lwpuk ,d= fd;s tkus dk mYys[k gSA iqfyl mi egkfujh{kd] xksj[kiqj ifj{ks= us viuh fVIi.kh esa ;g of.kZr fd;k gS fd ;g mi fujh{kd vius dks tksf[ke Hkjs okrkoj.k esa j[kdj lwpuk;sa ladfyr dj jgs gSaA ;g fufoZokn gS fd iqfyl dehZ dk gj ix ,oa dk;Zdyki iy&iy tksf[ke ls Hkjk gqvk gS] ijUrq lkekU; :i ls fuR; izfr gksus okyh fxjQ~rkjh] cjkenxh] lwpuk ,d=hdj.k vkfn 'kklukns'k dh ewy Hkkouk ls vkPNkfnr ugha izrhr gksrh gSA 'kklukns'k ds vUrxZr vkmV vkQ VuZ inksUufr vU; n'kkvksa ds vfrfjDr drZO; ikyu ds nkSjku tksf[ke Hkjs@dk;Z djus ij dh tk ldrh gSA u fd tksf[ke Hkjs LFkku ls lwpuk ,d= djus vFkok tksf[ke Hkjs okrkoj.k esa jgdj lwpuk;sa ,df=r djus ijA vUr esa rdZlaxr fo'ys"k.k ds mijkUr mifujh{kd dk;Z dh ifjf/k esa u ikrs gq;s iqfyl egkfujh{kd] xksj[kiqj tksu us mls vkmV vkQ VuZ izksUufr fn;s tkus dh laLrqfr ugha dh gSA

8- iz'uxr izdj.k esa miyC/k djk;s x;s vfHkys[kksa vk[;k ds ijh{k.k ls Li"V gS fd mifujh{kd us ftu dk;ksZ ds fy, vkmV vkQ VuZ izksUufr dh ekax dh gS] os o"kZ 1989 ls 1998 ds chp dh gSA vkSj mldh fM~;wVh ds lkekU; vuqdze esa fd;s x;s gSA lkekU; :i ls fuR; izfr gksus okyh ?kVukvksa vijkf/k;ksa ij fu;a=.k ,ao mudks fxjQ~rkjh] cjkenxh djuk iqfyl dk lkekU; nkf;Ro gS ftldk fuoZgu izns'k ds vusd iqfyl dehZ lQyrkiwoZd dj jgs gSaA mifujh{kd dk mDr d`R; ,d vPNk dk;Z rks dgk tk ldrk gSA ftlds fy;s mls iqjLdkj ,oa mRre izfof"V iznku fd;s x;s gSA ijUrq mldk ;g vPNk dk;Z 'kklukns'k dh ewy Hkkouk ls vkPNkfnr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA 'kklukns'k fn0 3&2&1994 ds rgr ^^ vkmV vkQ VuZ ** izksUufr dk eq[; vk/kkj dq[;kr ;k vkradoknh ;k t?kU; vijk/kh dh eqBHksM+ ds nkSjku ekj fxjkuk ;k fxjQ~rkjh djuk vFkok fM:wVh ds nkSjku tksf[ke Hkjk dk;Z iznZ'ku gSA iqfyl egkfujh{kd xksj[kiqj tksu] xksj[kiqj }kjk mifujh{kd@;kph dks vkmV vkQ VuZ izksUufr fn;s tkus dh laLrqfr dh xbZ gSA

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of records, I do not find any reason to differ from the findings recorded in the impugned order.

In my opinion also the conclusion arrived at by respondent no. 3 that the work of the petitioner contained in complimentary certificates and awards does not fall in the category of extraordinary courage and bravery and has rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that: -

"vr% iz'uxr izdj.k esa mijksDr of.kZr ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij esa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqpk gwWa fd mifujh{kd uk0iq0 f'kodqekj flag @;kph@ dk dk;Z 'kklukns'k fnukad 3&2&1994 ds vUrxZr vnE; lkgl ,oa 'kkS;Z iw.kZ o tksf[ke Hkjs dk;Z dh ifjf/k esa ugha vkrk gSA QyLo:i mls iqfyl egkfujh{kd tksu }kjk vkmV vkQ VuZ izksUufr dh laLrqfr ugha dh xbZ gSA ;kph }kjk izLrqr izR;kosnu fn0 4&3&1997 ,oa fnuksad 8&1&1998 lkjghu gS vr% mUgsa vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA**

There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

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

Dated: 21.5.2007

Rpk/


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.