Lal Bahadur Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 7

¶2

Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.01.07 19:48:10 +0530

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 1143 of 2018

¶6

1 - Lal Bahadur Tiwari S/o Shri Jagat Narayan Tiwari, Aged About 40 Years, Presently Posted and Working As Assistant Platoon Commander, S.T.F. Baghera, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department (Police), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, Police Head Quarter Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Director General of Police, PHQ (Naxal Operations), Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Additional Director General of Police, CAF, Police Head Quarter, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Commandant, Special Task Force, Baghera, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶13

6 - Roshan Kaushik, Inspector, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

7 - Raju Ram Netam, Sub Inspector, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

8 - Sohi Bhima, Head Constable, STF, Baghera, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶16

2 / 7

¶17

9 - Satyendra Singh, Head Constable, STF, Baghera District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶20

For Petitioner	: Shri Sushil Dubey, Advocate
For State/Respondents No.1 to 5	: Shri Swajeet Singh Ubeja, Panel Lawyer

¶21

Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

18/11/2024

¶24

1. By the instant petition the Petitioner seeks to invoke extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by inaction on the part of the Respondents/State in not making out of turn promotion to the employees who have participated in successful Naxal operations on 12.5.2014 and 24.8.2016 under the jurisdiction of Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (Chhattisgarh) and Dornapal, District Sukma (Chhattisgarh). Respondents No.6 to 9 and the other similarly situated Police Personnel like, Sub Inspectors, Head Constable, who had participated in earlier Naxal operations held on 12.5.2014 and thereafter on 24.8.2016 had already been awarded out of turn promotions, whereas the Petitioner has been deprived of such promotions.

¶25

3 / 7

¶26

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that as per the FIR dated 12.5.2014 (Annexure P1) as well briefing report of the Naxal operation, the Petitioner was the leader of the cut off party and Respondents No.8 and 9 were members of the cut off party, the two were awarded with out of turn promotion without giving any specific reason about why the members of the cut off party, i.e., Respondents No.8 and 9 were awarded out of turn promotion and not the team leader. It is further submitted that in the briefing report of the Naxal encounter, which was prepared by Inspector Ajay Sonkar, SHO, Dornapal on 24.8.2016, the briefing officer has mentioned under the head Goodness/Merit that the Commander of Party No.02 Lal Bahadur Tiwari and his team of STF TF-21 Sodhi Bhima Constable Number 131, Constable Number 1120 Satendra Singh, Constable Number 99 Ashish Dubey, Assistant Constable Number 234 Madakam Buchha, Assistant Constable Number 601 Kadati Rama without caring about their lives and irrespective of the deadly firing by the Naxalites, they demonstrated bravery and indomitable courage and bravely fought the Naxalite attack and engaged the Naxalites at one place. Seeing the police party dominating and finding themselves surrounded, the Naxalites loudly chanted each other’s names as Ramesh, Bhime, Jaggu, Podia, Rama, Bhima, Hidiya, Arjun, Hurra, Pandu Deva, Bandi, Singa and other Naxalites. They were running away by taking advantage of the dense forest while

¶27

4 / 7

¶28

shouting – run away, run away, the policemen would surround us and kill us, even then the said police personnel ran at the Naxalites and opened fire on them. The encounter lasted for about 25-30 minutes. It is further submitted that it is evident from the note-sheet (Annexure R8, annexed with the reply filed by the Respondents/State) of minutes of meeting held on 4.10.2017 that for award of out of turn promotion in which Case No.8 the representation of the Petitioner for out of turn promotion was rejected by the Promotion Committee under the Chairmanship of Respondent Director General of Police, however, no reason was given as to why the Petitioner is not entitled to out of turn promotion. Moreover, the promotion committee has also not given any reason as to why Respondents No.8 and 9 were granted out of turn promotion and why the role of the Petitioner, who was leader of the cut off party, was considered inferior than the members of the cut off party, i.e., Respondents No.8 and 9. It is further submitted that the Petitioner relies on the order dated 20.7.2015 passed by this Court in WP(S) No.5911 of 2014 (B.N. Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh) (Annexure P7), which covers acts of the present case. It is further submitted that it is the case where the role of the Petitioner is significant who was the leader of the cut off party and, therefore, the members of the cut off party, i.e., Respondents no.8 and 9 were awarded out of turn promotion. It is further submitted that the act of taking part in a Naxal operation, in

¶29

5 / 7

¶30

which the danger to one’s life is at its peak and charging against the Naxalites who are laced with deadly weapons and moving forward in the dense forest without caring for one’s life is itself an act of bravery and courage. The Respondents have never disputed the participation of the Petitioner in the said Naxal operation as a team leader of the cut off party nor have they produced any solid evidence that would render the role of the Petitioner insignificant in the aforesaid Naxal operation. Hence, it is claimed that the Petitioner is entitled to out of turn promotion to one higher post, i.e., from the post of Platoon Commander to the post of Company Commander under the provisions of Para 56(3) of the Armed Force Rules as well as Para 70(A) of the Police Regulations.

¶31

3. In its reply, the State/Respondents No.1 to 5 have admitted the fact that the Petitioner along with Respondents No.6 to 9 participated in the Naxal operation conducted on 12.5.2014 and 24.8.2016 in the area within the jurisdiction of Police Station Narayanpur, District Narayanpur and Police Station Phulbagadi, District Sukma and on the basis of their active participation the name of the Petitioner was forwarded for rewarding him out of turn promotion. The Inspector General of Police, Bastar Range has also sent communications dated 23.6.2014 and 18.8.2014 and has forwarded the name of the Petitioner including Respondents No.6 and 7 for rewarding out of turn promotion. The concerned

¶32

6 / 7

¶33

Superintendent of Police, District Narayanpur has also submitted specific proposal recommending name of the Petitioner for out of turn promotion. However, only on the basis that the Petitioner was a member of cut off party, he was not considered for out of turn promotion. It is submitted on behalf of the State that since the Petitioner was a member of the cut off party, his name has rightly not been considered for promotion, as such there is no illegality while not granting any out of turn promotion to the Petitioner.

¶34

4. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with due care.

¶35

5. There is no dispute regarding participation of the Petitioner in the Naxal operation dated 12.5.2014 and 24.8.2016. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner along with Respondents No.6 to 9 have participated in the Naxal operation which was successfully conducted. It is further not in dispute that the names of the Petitioner as well as Respondents No.6 to 9 have been recommended for out of turn promotion by the concerned Inspector General of Police and the Superintendent of Police. Respondents No.6 to 9 have been granted out of turn promotion on the basis of their participation in the Naxal operation as cut off party members in which the Petitioner was Commander. However, there is nothing on record to show that why the Commander of the cut off party has not been considered for the promotion, whereas

¶36

7 / 7

¶37

the members of the said cut off party, i.e., Respondents No.6 to 9 have been promoted. When there are recommendations made by the concerned Respondents/authorities such as the Inspector General of Police, Bastar Range as well as the Superintendent of Police and on such recommendations Respondents No.6 to 9 have been considered for promotion, why the Petitioner has not been considered is without any reason. The Petitioner was the Commander of the cut off party and when the members of cut off party were given out of turn promotion the same cannot be denied in respect of the Petitioner.

¶38

6. In view of the aforesaid aspect of the matter, I am of the fortified view that the Petitioner is also entitled to get out of turn promotion as already given to Respondents No.6 to 9.

¶39

7. As a fall of consequence, the writ petition is allowed . The State/concerned Respondents-authorities are directed to pass appropriate orders in respect of out of turn promotion to the Petitioner from the date when Respondents No.6 to 9 have been granted out of turn promotion. This exercise be done within a period of three months from the receipt of this order.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) JUDGE

¶42

Gopal Singh

Lal Bahadur Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Bahadur Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited And Ors.

Smt.Chandrabhaga Bai (Died) through Lrs- Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Md. Noor Ansari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Atul Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepti Tamrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Laxmi Prasad and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.