Gautam Saharia And ORS. v. Union Of India And ORS.
$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9179/2015 GAUTAM SAHARIA AND ORS.
..... Petitioners Through:
Mr.R.K.Shukla, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
..... Respondents Through:
Ms.Shubra Prashar, Adv. with Mr.Priyank Khattar, Adv./G.P. for respondents no.1 to 3.
Mr.B.K.Raut, Pairvi Officer with Mr.S.S.Sejwal, Law Officer for CRPF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
O R D E R
% 28.09.2015
1. The petitioner's grievance is that Head Constables (Paramedic) do not have any promotional avenues in National Disaster Response Force (NDRF). Apparently, NDRF does not comprise a permanent cadre and draws its personnel from different organisations including the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The petitioner was appointed as Head Constable, CRPF and complains that even in his parent organisation there are no promotional avenues for such individuals.
2. The stand of the CRPF which is represented on advance notice is that the terms and conditions of service were known to the petitioner when he joined the CRPF and that to offset the disadvantage of not providing promotional avenues, other benefits
such as the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme which was subsequently modified as Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme - the latter having been formulated in 2009 - assured financial upgradation. The MACP, in fact, assures three financial upgradations at intervals of 10 years each during the concerned official's career. It is also stated that the CRPF's Recruitment Rules provide for cadre review and that the petitioners may chose to agitate their grievance before the authority undertaking such review.
3. In the light of these submissions, the petitioners seek liberty to withdraw the writ petition and prefer representation to the concerned authorities at the time of cadre review.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J DEEPA SHARMA, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 rb