Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 413 (MP)

PANKAJ DIXIT v. STATE OF M. P.

2012-04-16

N.K.MODY

body2012
ORDER N.K. Mody, J.—Petitioner by Shri Piyush Mathur, senior Advocate with Shri M.S. Dwivedi, Advocate. Respondents No. 1 and 2 by. Shri Pramod Mitha, Govt. Advocate. The prayer in the petition is to direct the respondents to grant out of turn promotion from the date of incident on which he was lawfully became entitled i.e. from 11-1-1998 along with all consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is working as Sub-Inspector since 14-7-1990. It is submitted that out of turn promotion was given to the petitioner w.e.f. 11-1-1998 vide order Annexure P/4 for executing exemplary duties on 11-1-1998, Learned counsel for petitioner submits that case of the petitioner was recommended for out of turn promotion by the Supdt. of Police vide order dated 28-10-1998, which was confirmed by the DIG vide order dated 10-7-1998 and also by IG vide order dated 28-1-1998. It is submitted that in spite of recommendations the State Government took three years to pass the order and lastly the order was passed on 11-8-1998. It is submitted that order ought to have been w.e.f. 11-1-1998. It is submitted that in the similar circumstances the order was passed in the matter of Anurag Pandey in W.P. No. 306/2004 decided on 5-1-2010 and the out of turn promotion was given to Anil and Anurag from the date of incident. It is submitted that necessary directions be issued. 3. Learned counsel for respondents submits that reply has been filed. It is submitted that no illegality has been committed in passing the impugned order. As per Regulation 70-A of Police Regulation promotion can be given out of turn but it is nowhere stated that promotion ought to have been given from the date of incident. It is submitted that it is just matter of chance that out of turn promotion was given to Anil and Anurag from the date of incident, which cannot be claimed as precedent. It is submitted that petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 4. It is submitted that it is just matter of chance that out of turn promotion was given to Anil and Anurag from the date of incident, which cannot be claimed as precedent. It is submitted that petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 4. Regulation 70-A of the Police Regulation reads as under :-- Regulation 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 General of Police, if he has distinguished himself in anti dacoit operations, law and order situations of 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. 5. As per Service Rules a Sub-Inspector could be promoted on completion of seven years of service for the promotion to the post of Inspector. Since petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector on 14-7-1990, therefore on 11-1-1998 petitioner has completed qualifying service of more than seven years. As per Regulation 70-A the right of promotion accrued to the petitioner from the date of his excellent performance, which took place on 11-1-1998. The promotion could have been refused only on the ground that number of Officers promoted under the Regulation shall not exceed 10%. This is not the case of the respondents that out of turn promotion has already been given to more than 10% of employees. Since out of turn promotion was given to the petitioner for his excellent performance, therefore, there should not be discrimination as the promotion has been given to Anil and Anurag. Whenever honest Officers are promoted for their best performance the recommendations should be given effect forthwith and should not hang over for long period. Since out of turn promotion was given to the petitioner for his excellent performance, therefore, there should not be discrimination as the promotion has been given to Anil and Anurag. Whenever honest Officers are promoted for their best performance the recommendations should be given effect forthwith and should not hang over for long period. In view of this petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the order dated 9-6-2011 Annexure R/1 stands quashed and the order dated 18-4-2002 is modified to the extent that petitioner shall be treated as promoted from the date of incident i.e. from 11-1-1998. Needful be done within a period of two months. With the aforesaid observations petition stands disposed of.