Hi,
I am a retired CRPF Insp., filed a case against MHA
Can you please translate this court decision in some easy language; The important points of this decision .
I would be thankful to you .
https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=131422&yr=2014
Please tell me what it means actually ?
W.P.(C) 4251/2014, CM No.8556/2014
DHARAMVIR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. B.V. Niren with
Mr. Vijay Kinger, Advs.
Mr. S. S.Sejwal, D/C (Law) CRPF and
Mr. B.K. Rout, Pairvi Officer, CRPF
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
O R D E R
14.07.2014
The six petitioners have filed the present writ petition invoking
Article 226 of Constitution of India to seek quashing of the signals
dated 29th May, 2013 and 3rd July, 2013 whereby the respondents have
denied to the petitioners the second financial upgradation benefit in
terms of the ACP Scheme on the ground that the petitioners had failed to
qualify the Pre-Promotional Qualification Courses before completion of
twenty four years. The petitioners also seek direction to the
respondents to grant the second financial up gradation benefits to them
under the ACP Scheme as all these petitioners have already completed
twenty four years of regular service.
Mr. Ankur Chhibber, the counsel for the petitioner submits that all
the petitioners have already retired on different dates. It is also not
in dispute between the parties, that they have completed twenty four
years of regular service making them entitled for grant of the second
financial upgradation benefit. Counsel further submits that all the
petitioners had also qualified the Pre Promotional Qualification Course
after completion of twenty four (24) years of service, and there was no
fault or lapse on the part of the petitioners for not completing the said
course prior to the said period as they were not detailed for it.
Counsel further submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely
covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Jaipal Singh and
Ors.
vs. Union of India and Ors., WP(C) No.5539/2013 decided on 6th September,
2013, judgment in the case of Suraj Bhan and Ors. vs. Union of India and
Ors., WP(C) No.6650/2013 decided by this Court on 11th October, 2013 and
Dharamvir vs. Union of India and Ors., WP(C) No.3123/2014 decided by the
Division Bench of this Court on 26th May, 2013.
Learned counsel for the respondents appears on advance notice. Mr. S.
S.Sejwal, D/C (Law) CRPF and Mr. B.K. Rout, Pairvi Officer, CRPF are
also present in Court.
(Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, states that the
period of three months be given to the petitioners to extend the grant of
said benefit as a similar period of time was granted by this Court while
disposing off batch of writ petitions with lead case being WP(C)
No.3123/2014.)
We note with anguish that time and again such kind of petitioners
are approaching the Court to seek similar reliefs although number of
orders have already been passed by the Court taking a view that such
employees are entitled for the grant of second financial upgradation
after having completed twenty four years of service in terms of the ACP
Scheme without qualifying the Pre Promotional Qualification Course which
is a lapse primarily attributed to the respondents themselves for not
detailing these officers within the said period to undertake the said
course. All these petitioners have already retired and were compelled to
take legal recourse just because of respondents? recalcitrant attitude,
did not allow them to follow the decisions of this Court on the subject.
We therefore allow the present petition and impose a cost of
Rs.50,000/- upon the respondents for their uncooperative and non-
responsive disposition to the Court orders. The respondents are directed
to grant the prayer made by the writ petitioner for grant of benefits
under the Scheme/s subject to the verification of the number of years put
in by the writ petitioner in regular service. The benefits shall be
granted to the petitioners expeditiously and in any case not later than
three months from today.
It is made clear to the officers present in the Court on behalf of
the respondents that if in future any such petitions are filed agitating
relief akin to any of the reliefs granted or issues covered in the
aforesaid cases, as disposed off by this Court, the responsibility of the
officer concerned shall be fixed and such conduct of lapse, recalcitrance
and non-cooperation will be construed as contempt of this Court.
With the above directions, the present petition is disposed off.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
JULY 14, 2014/ak
