A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, consisting of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, has granted retrospective promotion to an officer in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) who was previously denied this opportunity. The petitioner, who had been stationed abroad, was ineligible for promotion due to not meeting the mandatory requirement of “10 years Group ‘A’ service” as outlined in the Central Reserve Police Force Group ‘A’ (General Duty) Officers Recruitment Rules, 2010. The court noted that the circumstances leading to this situation were beyond the petitioner’s control and, therefore, awarded him the benefits.
Background
The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the CRPF, was promoted to Inspector/GD on March 31, 1999. He was assigned to a post abroad starting June 21, 2001. When he became eligible to take the Promotional (Senior Inspector Cadre) course in 2004, the Ministry of External Affairs refused to release him back to the CRPF due to his deputation. On May 1, 2007, he was relieved by the borrowing organization and rejoined the 9th Battalion of the CRPF on July 11, 2007.
The respondents issued orders on October 15 and November 12, 2007, to protect the petitioner’s chances and seniority for promotion. Consequently, he was promoted to Assistant Commandant on October 23, 2009, after completing the promotional course. However, he was not granted the benefit of notional promotion, leading him to file a representation to the respondents.
On September 22, 2011, an order reassigned the petitioner’s seniority, placing him above a colleague, Ajay Kumar, at Sl. No. 205A in the gradation list. Ajay Kumar was promoted to Deputy Commandant in 2011, while the petitioner was promoted on August 21, 2012, prompting the petitioner to seek a reassignment of his seniority. On August 14, 2013, the respondents placed the petitioner above Ajay Kumar in the rank of Deputy Commandant.
Later, when the petitioner was due for the next promotion, his name was missing from the list issued by the respondents, while Ajay Kumar was promoted. The petitioner was again overlooked for promotion during the 2018-19 vacancy year despite being recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee.
The respondents informed the petitioner that, according to the Central Reserve Police Force Group ‘A’ (General Duty) Officers Recruitment Rules, 2010, the requirement of 10 years of Group ‘A’ service was mandatory for promotion, and since the petitioner did not fulfill this condition, he was deemed ineligible.
On October 12, 2018, he was excluded again, prompting another representation, which was also rejected. He was ultimately promoted on December 31, 2020.
On September 1, 2019, a list of officers entitled to the grant of Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) of Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) was issued, and the petitioner’s name was included. However, on May 18, 2020, this benefit was denied to him while being granted to Ajay Kumar. The petitioner later received NFFU effective January 1, 2020, but another representation he filed was rejected on February 16, 2022. Dissatisfied with the outcome, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
Citing the judgment in Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4886, the petitioner argued that, as per the rules, if he was granted retrospective seniority to the position of Assistant Commandant, his appointment date should be considered as August 17, 2004. He contended that since Ajay Kumar was appointed on the same date and granted subsequent promotions and NFFU, he could not be denied similar treatment.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent’s counsel argued that the rules required the petitioner to have 10 years of Group ‘A’ service, including 5 years as Deputy Commandant, for promotion. They also referenced a Standing Order from the Director General of the CRPF stating that only officers in Medical Category ‘SHAPE-I’ were eligible for promotion. While the petitioner could be considered for the rank of 2-I/C, he did not meet the necessary service conditions, and the Ministry of Home Affairs did not extend any relaxation to him.
The counsel further argued regarding the denial of seniority, stating that as per government policy, an officer deemed unfit for promotion and superseded by a junior would not gain seniority over the junior officer. Additionally, the petitioner was deemed unfit by the Screening Committee in 2020 due to not having completed 10 years of Group ‘A’ service by April 1, 2017.
Findings of the High Court:
The court ruled that the petitioner should not be held responsible for his lack of promotion, as the delay in his release from the borrowing department prevented him from obtaining ranks alongside his peers, a fact acknowledged by the respondents. The court criticized the respondents for their strict adherence to the rules without a compassionate approach toward the petitioner.
The court stated that denying the petitioner retrospective seniority along with his batchmates, based on circumstances beyond his control, was untenable. Citing various judgments, including Ashok Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3407, the court noted that personnel do not have a say in their postings and the department is responsible for ensuring they meet mandatory service conditions.
Referencing several other cases, the court directed the respondents to grant retrospective seniority to the petitioner to the rank of 2-I/C from the date Ajay Kumar was promoted, placing him immediately above Ajay Kumar in the seniority list. The petition was thus allowed.
