The Delhi High Court allowed for the treatment of the Petitioner, appointed for the post of Assistant Commandant in CAPF at par with this batch mates from the 26th Batch and re-fixing of the seniority w.e.f. the date of his batch mates from the 26th Batch.
It was opined that the delay in issuing the appointment letter of the Petitioner was caused for the administrative functioning of the Respondents and the Petitioner cannot be made to suffer because of that.
Brief Facts:
The present petition has been preferred seeking quashing of letter vide which the Petitioner’s representation seeking grant of senior time scale was rejected. Further, the Petitioner sought a notional date of appointment, financial benefits and regular promotion to the rank of Deputy Commandant along with batchmates from the 26th Batch, which were also rejected.
Brief Background:
As per the Petitioner, there was an advertisement for the post of Assistant Commandant in CAPF and after sitting for examinations, the Petitioner was declared successful. The Petitioner cleared PET but was declared medically unfit. Against this, a review medical examination was filed and the Petitioner was allowed. Again, he was declared medically unfit.
Thereafter, the Petitioner got his medical examination done at AIIMS and he was declared fit. A petition was filed praying for a re-medical examination and the same was conducted vide which he was declared medically fit.
The
batchmates of Petitioner received appointment letters but the
Petitioner despite being medically fit did not receive the appointment
letter. Again, a petition was filed after which the Petitioner received
his appointment letter.
The Petitioner ultimately joined CISF on 27.10.2012 along with the 27th batch. The date of appointment was kept original and hence, the issue arose with respect to seniority as the Petitioner was supposed to be in the 26th Batch.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was argued that the batchmates of the Petitioner were granted the benefit of senior time scale. Further, the delay in joining was not because of the Petitioner, it was because of the CISF.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was submitted that the batchmates of Petitioner joined in 2011 and the Petitioner joined in 2012. Therefore, parity cannot be claimed as benefits accrue only from the date of joining.
Observations of the Court:
The Court examined cases dealing with a similar issue and observed that in the present case, the Respondents have not given any cogent reason for the delay in issuing the appointment letter. In the actual appointment of the Petitioner, there was a delay of about 18 months, for which there was no sufficient justification.
Opining that the delay was caused for the administrative functioning of the Respondents and the Petitioner cannot be made to suffer because of that, the Bench allowed for the treatment of the Petitioner with this batch mates, re-fixing of the seniority w.e.f. the date of his batch mates from the 26th Batch.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned reasons, the Delhi High Court accordingly allowed the petition.
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Arya v. Union of India & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Case No: WP(C) 1330/2020
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr. Ankur Chhiber,, Mr. Himanshu Tiwari, Mr. Anshuman Mehtrotra, Mr. Nikunj Arora, Mr. Arjun Pawar
Advocates for Respondents: Advs. Ms. Shubhra Parashar, Mr. Pushpender Singh Charak,Mr. Kapil Gaur, Ms. Pinky Yadav
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments