Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Mahesh Kumar (NA)     18 December 2014

Can you find things for me in this decision ?

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



Learning

 0 Replies


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register