Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1223 (ALL)

RAMESHWAR TYAGI v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-04-05

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.—In this group of cases, the petitioners are aggrieved by the withdrawal of additional powers and privileges, which were granted to them, according to provisions of Government Order dated 15.9.1997, notification dated 18.9.1997, the order dated 26.12.2012 and consequential orders. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Writ A No. 15479 of 2015 are being noted below : 3. Rameshwar Tyagi and 164 ors are before this Court with the following prayer : “(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Circular dated 21.2.2015 issued by Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh and reversion order dated 12.3.2015 passed by the respondent No. 6-Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, enclosed as Annexure 1 and 2 to the writ petition. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to revert the petitioners and allow the petitioner to continue at their present status as Head Constable (P) according to the provisions of Government Order No. 7760 (2) Cha-Pu.-1-97-27/97 dated 15/9/97 and Notification dated 18.9.1997 and order No. Asha-Patra Sankhya DG-4-103 (8) 94 dated 26/12/2012, issued by the Director General of Uttar Pradesh. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to withdraw the powers, status and privileges from the petitioners which was granted in pursuance of the orders dated 10/11/2014 and 15/1/2015. (iv) issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioners as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case so as to secure the ends of justice or else the petitioners shall suffer irreparably. (v) award the cost in favour of petitioners.” 4. Record in question reflects that the petitioners were appointed as Constable in Civil Police between the years 1975 to 1981. Thereafter, they were promoted on the post of Head Constable in the month of February, 2014 and since then, they are working on the post of Head Constable. All the petitioners have completed more than 26 years of their satisfactory service and have been provided the second promotional pay-scale of Sub Inspector with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-. Thereafter, they were promoted on the post of Head Constable in the month of February, 2014 and since then, they are working on the post of Head Constable. All the petitioners have completed more than 26 years of their satisfactory service and have been provided the second promotional pay-scale of Sub Inspector with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-. The State Government issued a Government Order dated 15.9.1997 by which it was directed that the promoted Head Constable would be empowered for the investigation of some specific offences under Indian Penal Code and some other special laws. In pursuance of the said Government order dated 15.9.1997, the Director General of Police, U.P. Lucknow issued a Notification/Circular on 18.9.1997 providing that those Constables, who have been awarded promotion on the post of Head Constable (P) (Promotional Grade), would be entitled for privilege enumerated in para-16 of the U.P. Police Uniform Regulation provided for Assistant Sub Inspector and they would be entitled to conduct investigation of certain offences under IPC and other special laws. 5. It has been averred in the writ petition that all the petitioners are working as Head Constable (P) and they are presently receiving the second promotional pay-scale of Sub Inspector with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-. They have completed more than 26 years of service and are fully eligible to be granted the powers and duties as per the provisions of Government orders dated 15.9.1997, 18.9.1997 and 26.12.2012. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut vide orders dated 10.11.2014 and 15.1.2015 had granted some of the privileges of Sub Inspector to the petitioners. Many Head Constables, who have been granted the power and privileges of Assistant Sub Inspector and posted to other District, are availing privileges and power of Head Constable (P). 6. Shri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners have completed more than 26 years of service and they have already been granted second pay-scale of Sub Inspector with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- and thus, they are fully entitled for the promotion on the post of Head Constable (P)/Assistant Sub Inspector since they got the promotion on the post of Head Constables. 7. 4200/- and thus, they are fully entitled for the promotion on the post of Head Constable (P)/Assistant Sub Inspector since they got the promotion on the post of Head Constables. 7. On 21.7.2015, when the matter was taken up, this Court had proceeded to pass an interim order in favour of the petitioners to the following effect : “Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed a copy of the interim order dated 25.5.2015 passed in Writ (S/S) No. 1857 of 2015 (Brijesh Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others) whereby the impugned order dated 21.2.2015 and the consequential orders passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police of the concerned districts were stayed. In view of the interim order passed in Writ (S/S) No. 1857 of 2015 (Brijesh Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others), it is hereby provided that the impugned order dated 21.2.2015 and the consequential order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. List after three weeks.” 8. On the matter being taken up today, Shri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners makes a statement that the present controversy has been settled by the State Government through Gazette Notification dated 4.11.2015. List after three weeks.” 8. On the matter being taken up today, Shri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners makes a statement that the present controversy has been settled by the State Government through Gazette Notification dated 4.11.2015. For ready reference, the gazette notification is reproduced hereinafter: ^^mRrj izns'k 'kklu x`g ¼iqfyl½ vuqHkkx&4 la[;k 2299@6&iq0&1&15&500 ¼50½&2015 y[kuÅ] fnukad 4 uoEcj] 2015 vf/klwpuk i0vk0&626 lk/kkj.k [k.M vf/kfu;e 1897 ¼vf/kfu;e la[;k 10] lu 1897½ dh /kkjk 21 ds lkFk ifBr n.M izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 ¼vf/kfu;e la[;k 2] lu 1974½ dh /kkjk 157 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu iznRr 'kfDr dk iz;ksx djds vkSj vf/klwpuk la[;k 7760@6&iq&1& 97&27&97 fnukad 15 flrEcj] 1997 dks vf/kdzfer djrs gq, jkT;iky funZs'k nsrs gS fd iqfyl Fkkus dk Hkkjlk/kd vf/kdkjh] fuEufyf[kr ekeyksa ds rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa dk vUos"k.k djus vkSj rRdze esa ;fn vko';d gks rks oS/kkfud dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, eq[; vkj{kh ¼izksUur osrueku½ dks rSukr dj ldrs gS% ¼d½ ¼,d½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860 dh /kkjk 460] 323] 324] 504 vkSj 506 ds v/khu vijk/k % ¼nks½ tsc drjus] lkbfdy] fctyh ds rkj] i'kq dh pksjh] jsyos IysV QkeZ ij dh x;h pksjh vkSj 25]000 :i;sa ewY; rd dh fdlh vU; taxe lEifRr dh pksjh ds vijk/k% ¼[k½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e 1988 dh /kkjk 4 ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 25 ds v/khu vijk/k% ¼x½ vk;q/k vf/kfu;e] 1959 dh /kkjk 4 ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 25 ds v/khu vijk/k% ijUrq ;g fd iqfyl foHkkx ds ,sls lHkh eq[; vkj{kh tks oS;fDrd :i ls xzsM is 4200 :i;s ij jgs gSa vFkok ugh ij jgs gSa] dks vioknLo:i ,d ckj eq[; vkj{kh ¼izksUur osrueku½ ds :i esa ekuk tk;sxkA ;g O;oLFkk dsoy orZeku esa miyC/k iqfyl foHkkx ds eq[; vkj{kh ij ykxw gksxh% ijUrq vxzsrj ;g fd bl vf/klwpuk ds xtV esa izdkf'kr gksus ds fnukad ds i'pkr iqfyl foHkkx dk dksbZ vkj{kh tks eq[; vkj{kh ds :i esa izksUur gksxk dks ifjoh{kk vof/k lfEefyr djrs gq, eq[; vkj{kh ds in ij dqy 07 o"kZ dk dk;kZuqHko izkIr djus ds i'pkr eq[; vkj{kh ¼izksUur osrueku½ ds :i esa aeku fy;k tk;sxkA vkKk ls] ef.k izlkn feJ] lfpoA** 9. Shri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that a direction may be issued to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioners in the light of Gazette Notification dated 4.11.2015. 10. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by learned Standing Counsel. 11. Shri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that a direction may be issued to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioners in the light of Gazette Notification dated 4.11.2015. 10. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by learned Standing Counsel. 11. In view of above, all the writ petitions are disposed of with directions to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioners in terms of the aforesaid Gazette Notification dated 4.11.2015, ignoring the impugned orders. It is expected that the said exercise may be concluded by the respective competent authorities within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.