Naresh Kumar v. N.F.L. & ANR
!" #$%$!& ''
( )* ++,+* -
* .+*'(* (+
* (+ /'01 ! " ##$ % &" " # ##' ( )* +,- ./ 0
0' ' #' ( . !
&"
2 # ! '#'( 33
+ 0 4
4 5 ' ' #' 40 . 6% 7# $ , #' 8 8$(8'# 8(%! 0
/ 0 , #' 8 ('8#' ( 0 /
0
/ 00
8/
; +%!
0 .
/' ' #' ( 0
8/
/ 0
8 / 8 <
.0
"0 3'3#' ()* +=- .> 0
"
.
2 %
"0
4
!"# 4 $
% &'
() *
"0
0 +,
-.
/0 *) &' 11 (
.0
0
/ ""6% ./
! 0
"" 00
.
8'#%!
" 6% !>
6% 0
/
"
!
"0 ./
.
6% ./0
/ " 0
/
6% "
/ " %
"0
0 +/0 2 .
3$ &' +4 5 ( 6
(. 7$ # -
735 5%,
**&'1
= I have heard arguments of both sides and scrutinized the record with their able assistance.
6.
From the perusal of record, it comes out that petitioner was entitled to promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2014. For the purpose of promotion, he was supposed to complete 3 years service as Operator Grade-I. The petitioner remained in custody from 17.11.2013 to 14.03.2014. The FIR was not lodged by respondent. The FIR had no bearing with service of the petitioner. The petitioner came to be acquitted by Trial Court and respondent promoted him as soon as he completed 3 years of regular service. As per policy, the respondent extends promotion on completion of 3 years service at the end of calendar year. The petitioner completed 3 years service on 31.12.2014 and he was promoted w.e.f. 01.01.2015. 7.
The petitioner is claiming promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2014 on the ground that period spent in custody should be ignored and it should be treated as 'on duty period'. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in
)
- $)
-
"0
0 ,
-. )
-%
./ 0
/ 0
6% " 0
/ !0
/ 0.>
6 " 0
/ * . 0
/ 0
/% 0
/6% 0
/0 ?
/ 0
/ (0 ! ./ 0"
0
/ .
2
"8/ !
" / ' ' #' = *
000 0 . 8 / 3 %&.
"
. 0
"
0
0* (+3 #'##'#( @
&"9 A 97