JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioners for award of Police Medal for Gallantry after looking into the bona fide grievances of the petitioners afresh for their exemplary act of bravado and courage shown in combating naxalites and further to pay the Cash Reward as recommended in the Magisterial enquiry. 2. The case of the petitioners lies in a narrow compass. The petitioners are working as Constables in Central Reserve Police Force (herein referred to as CRPF) and presently posted in different Battalion under CRPF. On 04.02.2011-05.02.2011, the petitioners were posted in COBRA Battalion and in the intervening night of 04.02.2011-05.02.2011, they were a part of Team No. 12 of the Special Task Force (STF)-1 which was constituted to apprehend gang of Kundan Pahan, a dreaded naxalite. The petitioners actively participated in the aforesaid operation which took place in Marangburu Village in the Khunti District of Jharkhand and showed exemplary bravado and courage which ultimately forced the naxals to retreat from their position and run away and a large numbers of articles were recovered from the spot. In the said show of courage and bravery, the petitioners acted valiantly and continued their battle against the dreaded naxals even after sustaining bullet injuries. The battle continued for three hours and the petitioners sustained bullet injuries and were admitted in Ranchi Apollo Hospital. Thereafter, they were discharged from the said hospital with advice to medical rest for different days. 3. It is further the case of the petitioners that in the entire operation, despite lesser participation, three Police Personnel from the same unit were considered for the Police Medal for Gallantry i.e. one Assistant Commandant (now Dy. Commandant), Sub-Inspector (Now Inspector) and one Constable whereas, petitioners were recommended for Cash Reward only despite the fact that the Presiding Officer in the Magisterial Enquiry after assessing various reports/statements of the witnesses/assessments of actual action on the ground recognized the courageous and valiant act of the petitioners. The respondents also stood silent after recommending the name of the petitioners for Cash Reward. Aggrieved by the same, they represented before the respondents-authorities, but same were rejected stating therein that they were not fulfilling the requisite criteria, hence, their name were not recommended for Gallantry Award. The respondents also stood silent after recommending the name of the petitioners for Cash Reward. Aggrieved by the same, they represented before the respondents-authorities, but same were rejected stating therein that they were not fulfilling the requisite criteria, hence, their name were not recommended for Gallantry Award. The petitioners after being neglected at the hands of the Highest Authorities sent Legal notices to the Director General of Police, CRPF and to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India and the Director General was kind enough to mention the un-deservedness of the petitioners in reply vide letter dated 30th December, 2015 but remained silent on the various parameters on which the petitioners even did not qualify for getting recommendation for Police Medal for Gallantry. The petitioners even did not receive any Cash Reward till date rather the cash amount given to them was against Group Insurance. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have been constrained to knock the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances. 4. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents authorities have exhibited compete apathy and impassiveness in not even taking the case of the petitioners for consideration of Police Medal for Gallantry more so when the Magisterial enquiry has disclosed the Valiant and courageous role of the petitioners. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on enquiry report and submits that petitioners have valiantly participated in the entire operation in combating naxals and sustained bullet injuries and their gallant role in forcing retreat of the naxals definitely deserves them to be recommended for Gallantry Award by the respondents. It would be unfair and indeed an act of betrayal by the society if Soldiers deserving recognition for their gallantry are denied. However, they have been sanctioned only Cash Reward, but the same has not been received by the petitioners till date. Learned counsel for the petitioners places heavy reliance on Para 8, 9 and 16 to 22 of the judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Rajesh Shukla vs. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 9357 of 2014. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned ASGI assisted by Mr. Learned counsel for the petitioners places heavy reliance on Para 8, 9 and 16 to 22 of the judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Rajesh Shukla vs. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 9357 of 2014. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned ASGI assisted by Mr. Bhupal Krishna Prasad, appears on behalf of the respondents and submits that a total of 158 personnel i.e. 21 personnel of team No. 10, 23 of team No. 12, 19 of Team No. 13, 23 of Team No. 15 (all of 203 COBRA), 36 from JJ-14 and 36 from JJ-16 participated in the above operation. Though all personnel involved in the operation fought against naxals but 15 personnel had shown bravery and out of them, only 3 persons were recommended for award of Police Medal for Gallantry for their outstanding leadership, determination, extraordinary courage and conspicuous bravery. Since the petitioners sustained injury in this operation, a Court of Inquiry (COI) was conducted in accordance with Standing Order 08/2001 and the COI had recommended to grant Cash Reward to the petitioners in recognition of their bravery action. However, their action during said anti naxalite operation was not found so worthy for recommendation for award of Police Medal for Gallantry and names of personnel, whose acts were found deserving for Gallantry Medal only were recommended. Learned counsel further argues that the Gallantry Award is not granted as a matter of right. Police Medal for Gallantry is awarded only to those personnel, who have shown exemplary gallant action/performance in the operation against enemy. The action shown by the petitioner during operation was not fulfilling the parameter for awarding them Police Medal for Gallantry. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties on perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference on the following grounds: (1) Police Medal for Gallantry cannot be granted as a matter of right. The petitioners had right for consideration and were awarded Cash Award. (2) Admittedly, out of total 158 personnel, who participated in the aforesaid operation, fought against the Naxals, but only those persons would have been considered for Police Medal for Gallantry, who had shown bravery, exemplary courage and had come out of the jaws of the death. The petitioners had right for consideration and were awarded Cash Award. (2) Admittedly, out of total 158 personnel, who participated in the aforesaid operation, fought against the Naxals, but only those persons would have been considered for Police Medal for Gallantry, who had shown bravery, exemplary courage and had come out of the jaws of the death. (3) This Court cannot act as an Appellate Court of Enquiry conducted in accordance with Standing Order 08/2001 which had examined each and every fact and circumstances, prevailing situation and had come to a finding that only 3 persons were entitled for Police Medal for Gallantry for their outstanding bravery and exemplary courage wherein the role of the petitioners were also considered and their bravery was not unrecognized rather Cash Reward was given to them. (4) The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Rajesh Shukla vs. Union of India, 2016 Supreme (Del) 2563 in Para 19, 20 and 21 has held as under: “19. Devotion to duty is a virtue of great importance. Devotion to duty may be exemplified even in small actions. One need not be a hero to do brave deeds. A duty is what is due from a person with reference to the position held and the legal obligation cast. By virtue of the position held a person is bound to do certain things. Thus merely performing ones duty would not entitle a person to a higher credit. But where there is a devotion in the duty, the person discharging the duty would be entitled to a higher credit. A strong attachment akin to a religious devotion with complete detachment from the loss which a person may personally suffer would take the performance of the duty towards performing the duty with devotion. 20. Understanding valour and exhibiting conspicuous devotion to duty, with reference to the facts of the instant case we find that the respondents have not kept in mind the distinction between performing acts of exceptional courage and exhibiting conspicuous devotion to duty. The respondents had treated as if the entitlement was only if the acts performed evinced an exceptional courage. Even this evaluation is premised only on the contents of the FIR, overlooking the entry made in the case diary as also the recommendations made by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala who had joined the operation when the terrorists had not been silenced. Even this evaluation is premised only on the contents of the FIR, overlooking the entry made in the case diary as also the recommendations made by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala who had joined the operation when the terrorists had not been silenced. The respondents had treated as if the petitioner was injured when the terrorist indiscriminately fired. This is not so. The petitioner was injured when he engaged the terrorist whom the petitioner saw fleeing into the sugarcane fields. As the petitioner fired at the terrorist, the terrorist retuned the fire. The petitioner suffered four bullet injuries. He did not relent. He continued to inch forward and fire at the terrorist who was forced to retreat. This aspect has been completely overlooked. The result was that the terrorist could not escape and was shot dead by the other members of the force. 21. It is settled law that while exercising a discretionary power all relevant facts necessary to take the decision have to be noted and properly weighed. If the discretion is exercised in a casual manner it would vitiate the decision. In the instant case the discretion to be exercised has civil consequences; a financial benefit which shall enure to the petitioner for all his life. It is not a medal alone. That apart, society owes a debt of gratitude to the brave. A nation which honours the sacrifice and bravery honours itself. By acknowledging and endorsing acts of bravery, sacrifice and exemplary devotion to duty a nation fosters and encourages similar acts from its citizens and sets high standards of conduct in public affairs. A brave soldier needs to be recognized for his commitment to serve the nation with dignity and honour. It would indeed be a betrayal by the society if a soldier deserving a gallantry is denied the same. A right created must require its due redemption.” (5) Admittedly, the Police Personnel/Armed Forces/Para Military troop need to be recognized for their commitment to serve the nation with dignity and honour. A right created must require its due redemption. But simultaneously, the members of the team had different role to play. A right created must require its due redemption.” (5) Admittedly, the Police Personnel/Armed Forces/Para Military troop need to be recognized for their commitment to serve the nation with dignity and honour. A right created must require its due redemption. But simultaneously, the members of the team had different role to play. The cases were examined separately whether the acts of the police personnel evinced exceptional courage/gallantry or disjunctively, exhibited conspicuous devotion to duty, it was found that in the operation dated 04/05.02.2011 at Marangburu Village in the Khunti District of Jharkhand, the petitioners undoubtedly had participated and sustained injuries, but their act has not been recommended for Police Medal for Gallantry as they were not found showing exemplary courage, however, the courage shown do not go unnoticed and they have been sanctioned Cash Award for their role during operation. The Court of Enquiry studied every aspect of the operation and did not found the petitioners suitable for Police Medal for Gallantry rather they were recommended for Cash Award. (6) Members of Armed Forces, when committed to a task, cannot compromise and thus merely participating in an anti-naxal activity and getting injured may not be enough for a member of an Armed forces to claim that he had acted with valour or shown exemplary devotion to duty. 7. As a sequel of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, observations and judicial pronouncement, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for Police Medal for Gallantry and as such, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to pay the Cash Award as recommended, to the petitioners, if not paid till date, within a period of six weeks’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.