The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking arrears of pay for 2005-2007, despite a 2006 order granting promotion benefits, holding the claim hit by 11 years of delay and laches, citing internal rules and Supreme Court precedent regarding non-payment when higher post responsibility was not shouldered.
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.
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI** % Date of decision: January 09, 2024
(19) RAJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Mr. Gopal Singh and Mr. Vishal Thakre, Advs. versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Sr. PC with Ms. Versha Singh and Mr. Satya Sabharwal, Advs. for UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
“a. It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may most graciously be pleased to allow the present Writ Petition of the petitioner and direct the respondents to grant all the benefits as per the directions of the order Dt.02.11.2006 and promotion and other consequential to the petitioner for the period commencing from 25.03.2005 to 30.06.2007.
b. Pass such further and other order as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL KUMAR Signing Da te:1 5.01.2024 10:50:15
W.P.(C) 2346/2020
Page 1
“During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that as per the records available with the Department, the petitioner had taken three and not four chances for clearing the prescribed Departmental test for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in Railways. On the basis of the records, which are available in Court, it is further stated that the petitioner had not taken the test in the year 1997. The petitioner cleared the test in third attempt. However, it was under a mistaken impression that the Court was informed that the petitioner had taken the entrance test for the fourth time in the year 2001. The petitioner having cleared the test in the year 2001, he would be entitled to promotion and benefits thereof from that year itself.
In view of the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, nothing survives in this writ petition and the same is disposed of accordingly. The petitioner would be granted the benefits of promotion from the year 2001, as per the relevant rules.
However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL KUMAR Signing Da te:1 5.01.2024 10:50:15
W.P.(C) 2346/2020
Page 2
January 8, 2007, which reads as under:
“Sub:- Writ Petition No. 18278 filed by HC/Raj Kumar 6BN/RPSF/DBSI VS Union of India and others in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
Ref:- 6BN’s letter No. 6BN/HC/RK/Court Cases /2006818 dt. 7.12.06.
Please refer to above. Consequent upon order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, dt. 02.11.2006 in a Civil Writ Petition No. 18278/2004 filed by Raj Kumar Had Constable / RPSF (promoted as ASI/RPSE w.e.f 1.7.2004 under restructuring), Shri Raj Kumar will be promoted as ASI (E) w.e.f 21.9.2001, from the date when his batch mates were promoted. However, his promotion from retrospective effect will take place only after his successful completion of the Pre-Promotional Course.
For the period from 21.09.2001 till he is formally promoted as ASI, after completion of pre-promotional course only proforma fixation is admissible and no arrears of pay will be admissible from the period during which he has not shouldered the responsibility of the higher post, as per the existing instruction contained in Para 228 of IREM Vol. I. These provisions have also been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide their order dt. 13.8.97 in Civil Appeal No. 8904/941 UOI and Others Vs. P. Abrahan and Others, against order dt. 30.9.91 of CAT/Ernakulam Bench in OAN. 649/90.
The petitioner may be advised accordingly.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL KUMAR Signing Da te:1 5.01.2024 10:50:15
W.P.(C) 2346/2020
Page 3
“Consequent upon the order dated 02/11/2006 of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Civil writ Petition no. 18278/200 filed by Shri Rajkumar of RPSF and exemption from attending the prepromotional training of ASI granted by DG / RPF on his representation dated 08/02/2007 on grounds of his retirement on superannuation in June, 2007, approval of IG-Cum CSC/ RPSF is hereby communicated for empanelment and promotion of Shri Raj Kumar, HC/RPSF (promoted as ASI/RPSF w.e.f
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL KUMAR Signing Da te:1 5.01.2024 10:50:15
W.P.(C) 2346/2020
Page 4
1.7.04 under restructuring) to the rank of ASI in the scale of (Rs.4000-6000) we.f. 21.9.2001 from the date when his batchmates were promoted on the basis of his selection to the rank of ASI/Exe in 2001 under Rule 70 of RPF Rules, 1987. Further, as has already been intimated vide Board’s letter of even number dated 8.1.07, only proforma fixation will be admissible for the period from 21.09.2001 till 1.7.04 (since when he was promoted as ASI under restructuring) and no arrears of pay will admissible for the period during which he has not shouldered the responsibility of the higher post as per existing instructions contained in para 228 of IREM Vol I which have also been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide their order dated 13.8.97 in Civil Appeal No. 8904/1994 UOI and Others Vs P. Abraham and others against order dated 30.9.91 of CAT / Ernakulam Bench in OA No. 649/90.
It may please be ensured that the above staff was / is not undergoing any punishment or facing chargesheet for major penalty or facing any vigilance case etc. during the period. In case the above official was / is undergoing any punishment or facing chargesheet for major penalty or facing any vigilance case, his promotion as ASI/Executive w.e.f 21/09/2001 should not be given effect to and his case may be referred to this office for further orders.
Necessary action may be taken accordingly.”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL KUMAR Signing Da te:1 5.01.2024 10:50:15
W.P.(C) 2346/2020
Page 5
exemption from attending the pre-promotional training for ASI. In other words, the pre-promotional training is pre-requisite for being promoted to the post of ASI, was exempted in the case of the petitioner.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
JANUARY 09, 2024/ jg
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL KUMAR Signing Da te:1 5.01.2024 10:50:15
W.P.(C) 2346/2020
Page 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to arrears of pay for the period 2005 to 2007 given the delay of 11 years and reliance on internal rules and Supreme Court precedent denying such arrears when post w
Whether the delay and laches in filing the writ petition warrant dismissal despite a prior order granting promotion benefits.
RAJ KUMAR
UNION OF INDIA
V. KAMESWAR RAO
SAURABH BANERJEE
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
