Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 275 (JK)

Mukhtar Ahmed Dhar v. State

2013-05-03

TASHI RABSTAN

body2013
1. In view of the disturbances in the Valley of Kashmir right from 1989, the endeavours were made by State of J&K to curb the militancy with iron hands. The involvement of local police in anti militancy operations was found to be beneficial and, as such, several measures appear to have been taken to infuse confidence in local police and provide incentives to those who perform well particularly on militancy front. It is in this backdrop, several decisions were taken by the State of J&K, one of them being of promulgation of Govt. Order No.Home-3(P) of 2000 dated 06.01.2000. This order was passed to make provisions for out-of-turn promotions keeping in view the meritorious services rendered by Police Officers, who opted to serve the nation like the petitioner to curb the menace of militancy in the valley. The above said Government Order inter-alia laid down the procedure and norms for out-of-turn promotion in the Police Department in respect of very exceptionally deserving cases on objective basis. 2. It is contended that the petitioner, a Sub Inspector in the Police Department played a key role in counter insurgency operations conducted by the J&K Police to combat terrorism, and was in the forefront of such counter insurgency operations. His case for out-of-turn promotion was recommended by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Budgam in terms of Govt. Order No. Home-3(P) of 2000 dated 06.01.2000, but, was not considered by the competent authority. He made several representations, but, all in vain. Lastly, when, his case for out-of-turn promotion was not considered, he filed writ petition bearing SWP No. 1194/2009, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 15.02.2011 with the directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on the same lines as was done in case of other officials similarly situated, who had played similar role of same level in combating terrorism as had been played by the petitioner. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, respondents considered the case of the petitioner and vide order No. 1244 of 2011 dated 31.03.2011 rejected the case of the petitioner for his out-of-turn promotion. It is this order, which is called in question through the medium of instant petition. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, respondents considered the case of the petitioner and vide order No. 1244 of 2011 dated 31.03.2011 rejected the case of the petitioner for his out-of-turn promotion. It is this order, which is called in question through the medium of instant petition. The petitioner further seeks direction to the respondents to give the benefit of out-of-turn promotion to the petitioner on the same lines as has been done in case of other four persons recommended with him for the said benefit in terms of Govt. order dated 06.01.2000. 4. The petitioner has annexed copy of Govt. Order No.Home-3(P) of 2000 dated 06.01.2000 whereunder provision has been made for out-of-turn promotion in the Police Department in favour of exceptionally deserving officials/officers, the communication No. CS/CIT-Arath/08/982 dated 12.03.2008, addressed by Senior Superintendent of Police, District Budgam to Deputy Inspector General Of police, CKR-Srinagar, recommending case of the petitioner and others for promotion, and communication No. CS/CIT/Arath/08/1185-86 dated 29.03.2008 on the same subject as also documents depicting out-of-turn promotions made in favour of similarly situated police officials, who had participated in counter insurgency operations. It seems that vide letter No. CS/OTP/08/1498-99 dated 15.04.2008, Senior Superintendent of Police, Budgam had sent the citation for out-of-turn promotion to the Deputy Inspector General. 5. Respondents have filed objections admitting therein that petitioner has made significant contribution in counter insurgency operations. It is also contended that they placed the case of the petitioner for out-of-turn promotion on operational grounds before Police Establishment Board (PEB) constituted vide Government Order No. Home-559 (P) of 2007 dated 29.11.2007 and that the Board instead of out-of-turn promotion recommended cash award of Rs. 30,000 with CC Class I in favour of the petitioner and that cash award was duly sanctioned vide Order No. 2330 of 2008 dated 09.07.2008. It is further contended that the petitioner was rewarded suitably; commensurate to his performance in Anti Militancy Operations and that the respondents were under no legal obligation to accord consideration to out-of-turn promotion in favour of the petitioner. 6. Reply filed by the respondents ventured the petitioner to file rejoinder wherein it is pleaded that all the police officials/officers recommended for out-of-turn promotion were awarded such promotion and that the petitioner was singled out for cash award instead of out-of-turn promotion, though he was duly recommended for the said promotion. 7. 6. Reply filed by the respondents ventured the petitioner to file rejoinder wherein it is pleaded that all the police officials/officers recommended for out-of-turn promotion were awarded such promotion and that the petitioner was singled out for cash award instead of out-of-turn promotion, though he was duly recommended for the said promotion. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Facts are not in dispute that petitioner as admitted by respondents made significant contribution to counter insurgency operations undertaken by the J&K Police to combat terrorism. His case for out-of-turn promotion was recommended by the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Budgam. He also made representations which did not find favour, and filed SWP No. 1194/2009, which came to be disposed of with the directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on the same lines as was done in case of other officials similarly situated who had played the similar role of same level in combating terrorism as had been played by the petitioner. Respondents on consideration rejected the case of the petitioner for out-of-turn promotion vide order No. 1244 of 2011 dated 31.03.2011 on the ground that case of the petitioner was placed for out-of-turn promotion on operational grounds before Police Establishment Board (PEB) constituted vide Government order No. Home-559 (P) of 2007 dated 29.11.2007 and that the Board instead of granting out-of-turn promotion recommended cash award of Rs. 30,000 with CC Class I in favour of the petitioner. The respondents have not placed any material on record to demonstrate the reasons for taking such decision by the PEB in the case of the petitioner and discriminating him vis-a-vis other similarly situated persons recommended like him. 9. It is, thus, argued on behalf of the petitioner that similarly circumstanced persons were considered for out-of-turn promotion, but the petitioner was ignored without any justification and was recommended cash award by way of consolation which clearly smacks of malafide, discrimination and arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. 10. I find substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and there is clear violation of concept of `equality' guaranteed under the Constitution. Out-of-turn promotion is earned by a person, who consistently exhibits exceptional courage and shows extraordinary performance in the anti militancy operations and earns citations, which alone is basis for such promotion. 10. I find substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and there is clear violation of concept of `equality' guaranteed under the Constitution. Out-of-turn promotion is earned by a person, who consistently exhibits exceptional courage and shows extraordinary performance in the anti militancy operations and earns citations, which alone is basis for such promotion. The fact that the petitioner has played a significant role in anti militancy operations along with others is admitted by respondents in their reply, but the respondents have awarded only cash reward to the petitioner and have not considered him for out-of-turn promotion along with others. No reasons are forthcoming for this discriminating treatment accorded to the petitioner. If the petitioner had played the same role as was played by similarly circumstanced persons, then he too was entitled for the same treatment and the same could not have been denied by the respondents on the pleas that PEB, decided otherwise, though such decision of Board is not supported by any reason. The action of the respondents to apply double standards and different yard stick while dealing with the similarly situated employees, cannot be appreciated. 11. In the given circumstances, this petition is allowed. Order No.1244 of 2011 dated 31.03.2011 is quashed. Respondents are directed to give benefit of out-of-turn promotion to the petitioner on the same lines as was done in case of other officials similarly situated, who have played the similar role of same level in combating terrorism as has been played by the petitioner. 12. Disposed of as above along with connected CMA(s).