Bharat Singh Bist v. Union Of India & ORS

Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

$29, 30, 32 & 33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C)4820/2015 PITAMBER DUTT JADLI Petitioner Represented by: Mr. O.P .Aggarwal, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS......Respondents Represented by: Ms.Archana Gaur, Advocate W.P.(C) 4826/2015 DALIP SINGH Petitioner Represented by: Mr.O.P.Aggarwal, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondents Represented by: None W.P.(C) 4829/2015 KAMLA PRASAD SIRS WAL Petitioner Represented by: Mr.O.P.Aggarwal, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondents Represented by: Ms.Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with Mr.Rahul Chouhan, Advocate W.P.(C) 4830/2015 BHARAT S1NGH BIST Petitioner Represented by: Mr.O.P.Aggarwal, Advocate versus W.P.(C) No.4820/2015 & conn.matters

UNION OF INDIA & ORS . Respondents Represented by: None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RAN!

ORDER

% 15.05.2015 CM No.8716/2015 in W.P.(C) No.4820/2015 CM No.8723/20 15 in W.P.(C) No.4826/20 15 CM No.8731/2015 in W.P.(C)No.4829/2015 CM No.8728/20 15 in W.P.(C) No.4830/20 15 Allowed subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C)Nos.4820/2015, 4826/2015, 4829/2015 & 4830/2015

1. On May 11, 2015 a batch of writ petitions filed by persons holding ranks of Constable, Head Constable, Assistant Sub-Inspector and SubInspector in Sahastra Seema Bal were disposed of by us on the issue of their entitlement to the benefit of the first, second and third financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme notified in the year 1999 and the MACP Scheme notified in the year 2008. The order reads as under:- 1.

All petitioners except Ramesh Chandra the writ petitioner of W.P.(C) 463612015 are either serving or have oft retired as enrolled members of the Force. Sahastra Seema Bal which originally was known as Special Service Bureau. The Cadre Controlling Authority for both being the Ministry of Home Affairs.

2.

Petitioners hold different ranks or have retired from different ranks such as Constable, Head Constable, Assistant Sub Inspector and Sub Inspector.

3.

The claim of some petitioners is to grant offirst financial W.P.(C) No.4820/2015 & conmmatters

upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme who did not earn promotion within first 12 years of service and thereafter to the benefit of the second financial upgradation on rendering 24 years service if no second promotion in the next 12 years was granted, which period got reduces to 20 years service under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme. The claim of some is to the benefit of the second upgradation.

4.

Some petitioners had worked as Naiks which post was abolished and they were re-mustered as Head Constables. 5.

The writ petitions have not been preceded by a representation to the respondents calling upon to the respondents to take a reasoned decision with respect to the petitioners' entitlements under the Assured Career Progression Scheme notified on August 19, 1999 as also the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme which was notified somewhere in the year 2008.

6 It is trite that where mandamus is claimed the writ petition must be preceded by a representation to the statutory authority drawing attention of the statutory authority to such facts which the representee wants the authority to consider. This would enjoin upon the authority concerned to decide the representation with a reasoned decision.

7.

Under the circumstances we dispose of all writ petitions issuing a direction to the respondents to treat the writ petitions as a representation and pass a reasoned order. Qua such petitioners whose representations are accepted, full or in part, necessary payment with arrears shall be disbursed. Those who are receiving pension will be entitled to their pension being refixed in view of the decision taken. 8.

Necessary decision be taken within 12 weeks from today and communicated to the petitioners. Needless to state if the petitioners or anyone of them is/are aggrieved by the decision taken they would be entitled to the remedy as per law. 9.

No costs.

W.P.(C) No.4820/20 15 & conn.matters

10.

Dasti.

2.

The petitioners of the above captioned petitions are also claiming entitlement under the ACP and MACP Scheme. We note that the petitioner of W.P.(C) No.4826/2015 was voluntarily retired on June 31, 2008 and the petitioner of W.P.(C) No.4830/20 15 superannuated on November 30, 2006. Thus these two would not be entitled to the benefit of the MACP Scheme. However their entitlement under the ACP Scheme needs to be considered. 3.

The four captioned petitions are disposed of declaring that the directions issued in paragraph 7 and 8 of the decision dated May 11, 2015, contents whereof have been noted by us in paragraph 1 above would be treated as directions issued even in the four captioned petitions, save and except as clarified in paragraph 2 above concerning writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No.4826/20 15 and W.P.(C) No.4830/20 15. 4.

No costs.

PRADEEP NANRLIOG, J.

P TIBHA RAN!, J.

MAY 15 9 2015 mamla W.P.(C) No.4820/2015 & conn.matters