Dismissed

Mohammad Rafik Khan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC19 Dec 2023WPS/3452/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by police assistant sub-inspector seeking promotion, seniority from joining date, and salary increment. Court held evidence of applicable rules and parity with juniors in same cadre was lacking and dismissed the petition, granting leave to file representation.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Liberty granted to file representation for promotion consideration if eligible.

Mohammad Rafik Khan Vs State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 3452 of 2016

¶5

Order Reserved on : 22/09/2023

¶6

Order Passed on : 19/12/2023

¶7

Mohammad Rafik Khan, S/o Late Shri Roshan Khan, aged about 48 years, working under the office of Superintendent of Police Bilaspur.

¶8

---- Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary, Department of Home and Police Affairs, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. and Post Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Civil Line, P.S. - Civil Line, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

The Secretary, Finance, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

The Director [Treasury, Audit and Accounts] Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

Joint Director of Division (Funds Account and Pension), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Suyash Dhar, Panel Lawyer

¶17

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶18

(CAV Order)

¶19

The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking promotion, seniority and increase in salary on the grounds that juniors to him have been promoted to the post of Inspector, he is entitled for

¶20

¶21

seniority from the date of his joining i.e. 23.04.1992 and increase in salary which should have been given after one year of service i.e. from 23.04.1993 but has been given from 1998.

¶22

Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that on 23.04.1992, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector (M), which falls within the Ministerial Cadre employee. The petitioner completed his necessary qualification in the year 1997 and after completion of requisite qualification, seniority and increase in salary was given on 25.12.1997 and in the year 1998 respectively. According to the petitioner, some of the employees of the Police Department are obtaining the benefit of seniority from joining date of service and also obtaining increase in salary after one year of joining date, however, the petitioner has been denied the same.

¶23

The grievance of the petitioner is that juniors to him have been promoted on the post of Inspector but the petitioner has not been promoted till date, the petitioner is entitled for seniority from the date of joining i.e 23.04.1992 but the same has been given in the month of December, 1997, and the petitioner should have been given increase in salary after one year of service i.e. on 23.04.1993 but the same has been given from 1998. In this regard, the petitioner has

¶24

¶25

submitted representation before the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur but his representation fallen to deaf ear of respondent authorities. Hence, the instant petition by the petitioner seeking following relief(s)

¶26

“10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner.

¶27

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities particularly the respondent No.2 Director General of Police, Raipur to provide the benefit of Seniority, Promotion and Increase in salary to the petitioner as per Executive Force of the Police Department, in the interest of justice.

¶28

10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly further be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit.

¶29

10.4 Cost of the petition may also be granted.”

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have given benefit of seniority to some employees of other cadre of police department from the date of their joining the service and increase in salary after one year of joining, their names are Prabhu Dan Minj, Sub Inspector (T/C) and Rajesh Ramteke, Inspector (T/C) & some junior officers namely Sanat Kumar Dubey and Motilal Sharma have been promoted. The petitioner is an

¶31

¶32

employee of the Police Department but in the matter of petitioner, the respondent authorities did not observe the rules and regulation of the Police Act and they are applying the rules of General Administration Department, whereas the Home Police Department of M.P. issued a letter No. F-2/ A/764/97 B-4/DO on 26.12.1994 (Annexure P/3) stating that the employees of Police Department govern by Police Regulation, therefore, the rules of General Administration Department would not be applied, as such, the petitioner is entitled to obtain Promotion, Seniority and Increase in salary like Executive Force Employees of the Police Department.

¶33

Learned counsel further submits that according to the letter dated 22.05.1984 (Annexure P/4) issued by the Additional Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Home Police Department, the ministerial employees are the Executive Force Employees of the Police Department and the Ministerial Employees would not govern in the Kanishth Seva Chayan Board.

¶34

Learned counsel also submits that the Director General of Police issued an order (Annexure P/5) on 28.09.2013 with regard to Executive Force (M)/Ministerial Employees that all the employees of the police department who have been enrolled under Section 8 of Police Regulation, all are member of Police Department and it has also been very cleared by sub para 3 of para 2 of the order that Ministerial

¶35

¶36

Employees are member of Executive Police Force, as such, observing member of Executive Police Force, the above described benefits to be given to the petitioner. Thus, the respondent authorities may be directed to extend the benefit of seniority, promotion and increase in salary to the petitioner as per Executive Force of the Police Department.

¶37

Reliance has been placed on the decision Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Das reported in AIR 2009 SC 3051 and decision of High Court of Allahabad bench at Lucknow in the matter of Mewa Ram Ram Charan Vs. United Provinces reported in AIR 1954 Allahabad 487.

¶38

Learned State counsel strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) on 22.04.1992 (Annexure R/1) and the petitioner is employee of ministerial cadre. In the appointment order, it has been specifically mentioned that no salary increase will be given to the petitioner without passing the Hindi typing test. As per the circular dated 30.06.1981 (Annexure R/2) of General Administration Department, any employees who have not passed Hindi Typing Test, will not be entitled for increment and salary and the period from the date of joining till date of acquisition of degree will not be counted for the purpose of

¶39

¶40

seniority. Learned counsel further submits that in the instant case, the petitioner though joined the services on 24.03.1992 but has cleared/passed the Hindi Typing test in the year 1997, therefore, he is entitled for seniority from the year 1997, and accordingly, increment in salary was granted to him from the year 1998.

¶41

Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is an employee of Executive Force Ministerial cadre and in para 9.1 the petitioner gave reference of one Prabhu Dan Minj and Rajesh Ramteke that they both belongs to telecommunication technical cadre. In the said posts, there is no requirement of passing of Hindi Typing test and Krishna Kumar Kushwaha and R. Praful Shukla are from different cadre and not from ministerial cadre & in their cadre also there is no requirement of passing of Hindi Typing test. Since all these persons belong to different cadre, their case is different to that of the case of the petitioner, and petitioner cannot claim equity from them.

¶42

Learned counsel also submits that Sanat Kumar Dubey and Moti Lal Sharma both appointed as Constable and thereafter promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector. They are not the employee of ministerial cadre. The promotional channel of the cadre of Constable and A.S.I. are different, therefore, the case of the petitioner is different from Sanat

¶43

¶44

Kumar Dubey and Moti Lal Sharma. It has been further submitted that letter dated 26th December, 1994 issued by Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, would not be helpful to the petitioner as the same is not applicable to present case. The person with whom the petitioner is claiming parity is from the different cadre and the promotional channel of the Constable and A.S.I. is different from that of ministerial cadre of which the petitioner belongs. Thus, the petition has not merit and the same may be dismissed.

¶45

The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply of State authorities objecting that there is only five branches of the Police Department for promotion and, as such, petitioner governs in the Asainik Police (Civil) branches because there is no Ministerial cadre in the police department. In this regard, proceeding statement dated 24.07.2012 (Annexure P/7) has been filed by the petitioner. It is clear from para 2 of Annexure P/5 that all Executive (M) Force are considered as member of Executive Police Force, as such, the petitioner is entitled to get seniority, promotion and increase in salary according to Asainik Police (civil) branch.

¶46

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶47

In the instant case, the petitioner has filed a copy of decision

¶48

¶49

dated 24.07.2012 (Annexure P/7) taken in the Police Central Welfare Committee (Annexure P/7), which makes it clear that some of the proposals were sent to the Government. Out of the proposal, the proposal No.66, which relates to promotion, is as under :-

¶50

iqfyl foHkkx esa fofHkUu dSMj ds in Lohd`r gS] ftuds inksUufr gsrq lHkh<br>¼sdSMj½ laoxZ dh Lohd`fr ‘kklu Lrj ls izkIr fd;k tkosA ftlls lHkh dks vius&vius ¼sdSMj½ laoxZ esa inksUufr fey ldsA blh izdkj dk;kZy; esa fyfid ,ao LVsuks laoxZ dks dk;Zikfydk ¼s,e½ cy dk uke fn;k x;k gS] ftls i`Fkd & i`Fkd laoxZ esa foHkkftr dj tSls LVsuks laoxZ dks dk;Zikfyd ¼sLVsuks laoxZ½ ,ao fyfid laoxZ dks dk;Zikfyd ¼svkWfQl laoxZ½ fu/kkZj.k gsrq izLrko Hkstdj LVsuks laoxZ ds fy, inksUufr pSuy dh O;oLFkk lqfuf’pr fd;k tkosA lkFk gh jkT; fuekZ.k ds le; iq- egkfunsZ’kd }kjk Lohd`r iq-eq- ds lsD’ku foHkktu dh izfr izkIr dj lsD’ku lsVvi tkjh fd;k tkosA	bl izLr ls gSA	laca/k esa ko ;kstuk Hkstk tkrk	IzkLrko ekU; fd;k x;k gSA bl laca/k esa laoxZ fu/kkZj.k ,ao in fuekZ.k izLrko ‘kklu dks Hkstk tkuk gSA lsD’ku lsVvi dh Lohd`fr foHkkxk/{k ls tkjh fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA

¶51

As regards the proposal No.66, no order has been filed by the petitioner or by the respondent authorities which could show that whether the proposal has been accepted or not and whether any unified rule has been framed/made in this regard or not.

¶52

According to the respondent authorities, the petitioner and other employees, with whom the parity has been claimed by the petitioner, are from different cadres and their promotion channel are also different and as per the respondent authorities, when the petitioner cleared/passed Hindi Typing

¶53

¶54

exam in the year 1997, increment in salary was granted to him from the year 1998, which is evident from excerpts of the service book (Annexure R/3). It is not the case of the petitioner that any junior to him from his cadre has been promoted before him.

¶55

Thus, in absence of any circular, promotion rule and guidelines in this regard, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent authorities, who in turn, shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner for promotion like other cadre employee and, if the petitioner is found eligible, benefit of promotion be extended to him, in accordance with

law.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey)

Judge

pkd

Mohammad Rafik Khan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Rafik Khan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Prachi Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Akanchha Sidar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bajaj Finance Limited Vs Amit Kumar Modi

Visham Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mohammad Hussain Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Smt. Anita Yadav, Vs State Of Chhattisgarh