High Court dismissed three writ petitions challenging the non-counting of pre-District Police Force service for seniority. Bench rejected claims for seniority and promotional eligibility based on prior service in the Armed Force as recruitment was independent.
Writ petitions failed and were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5545 of 2019
Pradeep Kumar Sana S/o Late Shri Dhirendra Sana Aged About 42 Years Presently Working As Constable B.No. 718 In Cyber Cell Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
AND
WPS No. 5590 of 2019
Brijmohan Singh S/o Emer Sai Singh Presently Working As Constable No. 353 In Police Station - Police Line Balrakmpur, District BalrampurRamanugajn Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
AND
2
WPS No. 5549 of 2019
Ram Kumar Bhagat S/o Late Shri Putu Ram Bhagat Aged About 39 Years Presently Working As Constable B.No. 676 In Police Station- Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
| For Petitioners | : | Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate along with |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate | ||
| For State | : | Mr. Sudeep Verma, Deputy G.A. and |
| Mr. Avinash Singh, Panel Lawyer |
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
17/03/2021
3
4
appears that the respondents have not initiated any further steps for withdrawal of the said benefit of revised pay-scale granted to the petitioners.
5
promotion both under class-A as also under class-B for promotion to the post of Head Constable.
10. It was the further contention of the learned State counsel that from the plain reading of the NOC which was obtained by the petitioners also it would clearly reveal that the NOC was only granted for the purpose of permission to participate in the subsequent recruitment proceedings and that there was no NOC for the purpose of counting the previous service for the purpose of seniority etc. and therefore
6
mere grant of NOC alone will not be sufficient for construing that the services rendered by the petitioners under the Chhattisgarh Armed Force has to be treated as continuity in service of the petitioners under the District Police Force, where in fact the petitioners have been appointed only in the year 2005 & 2007 and therefore their seniority can only be counted from the date they were born in the District Police Force and not prior to that.
11. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, what needs to be considered and what is culled out from the admitted factual position as it stands, from the preceding paragraphs is that the petitioners admittedly, had participated in two separate independent recruitment process, one in the year 2001 for appointment to the Chhattisgarh Armed Force and second in the year 2005 and 2007 for recruitment to the District Police Force for District Balrampur. Both these recruitment process were independent and separate by nature and the rules governing the field. It is only for the purpose of the petitioners being Constable under the Chhattisgarh Armed Force were required to obtain NOC of the employer for the purpose of applying and also for participating in the subsequent recruitment process. Nowhere was any assurance given by the respondents either in the advertisement or by way of any circulars or instructions of the State Government entitling the petitioners for the seniority for the previous service rendered under the Chhattisgarh Armed Force.
12. As regards, the benefit of counting of service by the respondents for the purpose of revised pay-scale and the subsequent cancellation of
7
the same followed by the order of this Court in WPS No. 1498/2019, it is made clear that the interference of this Court was only on the ground of the action being in violation of the principles of natural justice, which by itself does not mean that this High Court had decided the entitlement part of the petitioners for the benefit of revised pay-scale.
13. Moreover, as regards the correspondences of the Director General of Police of 2019 the same also is in the context of a circular of the Finance Department dated 26.09.1972 which again would be a circular based upon the Pension Rules governing the field, wherein for the purpose of determining the qualifying service the services rendered by a person prior to the appointment in the present Department, if the same was also a pensionable service under the State Government, the same should be counted only for the purpose of pension and gratuity. This further would establish the fact that except for the benefit of pension and grant of gratuity the earlier services rendered by the petitioners being recruited by a separate recruitment altogether, cannot be counted for the purpose of grant of seniority.
14. Even otherwise, the petitioners' claim for seniority cannot be entertained or accepted for the simple reason that, the petitioners have been appointed along with a large number of other candidates on the post of Constable (GD) and for all these candidates appointed by the same recruitment, it would be the date of appointment which is material and that would be the date on which the petitioners are to be treated to have born in the cadre and therefore, the petitioners
8
cannot be granted seniority of a period when in fact they were not born in the Department or in the particular cadre of District Police Force. Unless of course the services of the petitioners were either sent on deputation or sent on transfer and thereafter the petitioners would had been absorbed in the District Police Force, which is not the case herein.
15. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioners calling for an interference or for issuance of a mandamus directing the respondents to grant seniority for the period that the petitioners have rendered under the Chhattisgarh Armed Force.
16. The writ petitions therefore fail and are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/(P. Sam Koshy) Judge
Ved
3 issues framed by the court
Whether services rendered prior to transfer to the District Police Force under the Chhattisgarh Armed Force can be counted for seniority.
Whether counting service for pension purposes entitles the petitioner to seniority benefits from the date of initial appointment.
Whether a NOC for recruitment permits continuity of service for seniority purposes in a fresh independent recruitment drive.
Pradeep Kumar Sana
Brijmohan Singh
Ram Kumar Bhagat
State Of Chhattisgarh
Director General Of Police
Superintendent Of Police
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
