Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 895 (MP)

Atmaram Sharma v. State of M. P.

2009-07-31

A.K.PATNAIK, SUBHASH SAMVATSAR

body2009
ORDER A.K. Patnaik, C.J. -- 1. This is an appeal filed under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 29/4/2009 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1679/2009 (s). 2. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal briefly are that the appellant was selected and appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector, Police on 1/6/1983. On 7/9/1992, when the appellant was posted as S.H.O. (P), Police Station Bhander, Tehsil Picchore, District Shivpuri, he apprehended a number of accused persons and controlled law and order situation with lot of courage and in the incident he suffered several injuries because of pelting of stones and bricks by a crowd. For his exemplary gallantry act, he was recommended and awarded police medal. His case was then recommended for out of turn promotion under Regulation 70-A of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations. Thereafter, he was promoted out of turn to the post of Inspector with effect from 31/12/1997 i.e. the date on which he joined in the promoted post. The appellant then filed a representation saying that he should have been given the promotion to the post of Inspector with retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 7/9/1992, when the incident took place and the appellant displayed his extraordinary courage, but by order dated 18/212009, his representation was rejected by the Government. The appellant then filed writ petition No. 1679/09 (s) before this Court, but by impugned order dated 29/4/2009, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. Shri Katara, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the incident in which the appellant displayed extraordinary courage took place on 7/9/1992, he should have been given out of turn promotion under Regulation 70-A of Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations with effect from 7/ 9/1992. He submitted that others have been given the benefit of out of turn promotion from the date of the incident, but the appellant has been denied out of turn promotion from the date of incident. He cited a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in State of M.P. and others vs. Mahendra Kumar Sharma, 2008 (1) MPLJ 320 for the proposition that the Court can in appropriate cases direct the promotion with retrospective effect. 4. He cited a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in State of M.P. and others vs. Mahendra Kumar Sharma, 2008 (1) MPLJ 320 for the proposition that the Court can in appropriate cases direct the promotion with retrospective effect. 4. We have perused the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge and \we find that the learned Single Judge has examined the provision of Regulation 70-A of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations and has held that Regulation 70-A does not state that out of turn promotion has to be granted from the date of the incident in which the Constable or Police Officer rendered any meritorious or distinguished service. 5. Regulation 70-A of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation is quoted here in below: "70-A. Notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 70-A Constable may be promoted to the rank of Head Constable by the Superintendent of Police with the prior approval of the Director General of Police and a Head Constable to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector by the Deputy Inspector General of Police with the Prior approval of the Director Inspector General of Police if he was distinguished himself in anti-dacoity operation, law and order situations or shooting competitions or in some other field of duty or who has been awarded the President's Police Medal for Gallantry or for meritorious/distinguished services, if he considers him suitable for promotion. Similarly the Inspector General of Police may promote an Assistant Sub-Inspector to the rank of Sub-Inspector and a Sub-Inspector to the rank of an Inspector on similar grounds if found suitable for promotion and subject to the prior approval of the Director General of Police. The number of officers promoted under this Regulation shall not exceed 10 percent. On a reading of aforesaid Regulation 70-A, we do not find any provision therein that out of turn promotion is to be given with effect from the date of the incident in which a Constable or a Police Officer displayed outstanding courage or distinguished service in course of his duties. Hence, the view taken by the learned Single Judge that Regulation 70-A does not provide for out of turn promotion from the date of incident is absolutely correct. 6. Hence, the view taken by the learned Single Judge that Regulation 70-A does not provide for out of turn promotion from the date of incident is absolutely correct. 6. We further find from the impugned order that the learned Single Judge has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and others, (2008) 10 SCC 115 in which it has been held that while dealing with the question of delay and laches in service matters, the Court should not grant relief to a person who has approached the Court after two decades of termination and has deprecated relief for consideration of such stale claims. The learned Single Judge thereafter has held that appellant had approached this Court after lot of delay and therefore, is not entitled to seniority from the date of incident and has accordingly dismissed the writ petition. 7. In our view, the approach of learned Single Judge on the question of delay is correct. If the appellant is given promotion with effect from 7/9/1992 when the incident took place in which he has displayed extraordinary courage, then all those officers who were promoted between 1992 to 1,997 would be adversely affected as they will become junior to the appellant, The delay on the part of the appellant in approaching this Court was therefore fatal to the writ petition and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. 8. In the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in State of M.P. and others v. Mahendra Kumar Sharma (supra) cited by Shri Katare, we find that in the facts of that case, the Screening Committee which considered the case of the Mahendra Kumar Sharma for out of turn promotion has turned down his case far out of turn promotion on 27/5/2003 and the learned Single Judge before whom, Mahendra Kumar Sharma had filed the writ petition took the view that the Screeing Committee ought to have recommended the case of Mahendra Kumar Sharma for out of turn promotion with effect from 27/5/2003 and the Division Bench only upheld the view taken by the learned Single Judge in that case. Therefore, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench has taken a view that 1/12/2002 when Mahendra Kumar Sharma participated in the anti dacoity operation and displayed extraordinary courage. Therefore, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench has taken a view that 1/12/2002 when Mahendra Kumar Sharma participated in the anti dacoity operation and displayed extraordinary courage. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of M.P. and others v. Mahendra Kumar Sharma (supra) is, therefore, of no assistance to the appellant. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to admit this appeal and we accordingly dismiss the same.