Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2745 of 2008 ====================================================== Jageshwar Prasad Yadav , son of Late Bandelal Prasad Yadav, resident of Village and P.O. Mahkhar via Simri Bakhtiyarpur, P.S. Simri Bakhtiyarpur District- Saharsa Versus .... .... Petitioner 1. The Union of India , through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110001 2. Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, Head Quarters, Block No.13, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 3. Inspector General , Central Industrial Security Force, Eastern Sector, Head Quarters, C.I.S.F. Building, Boring Patliputra Road, Patna 4. Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, C.I.S.F. Building, Boring Patliputra Road, Patna 5. Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Nalco Angul, P.O. Township Angul, District- Angul, Orissa. 6. Deputy Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, N.T.P.C./ T.T.P.S. Talchar, P.O. Thermal Talchar, District- Angul, Orissa 7. Assistant Ccommandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, N.T.P.C. Kanti, P.O. Thermal Township, District- Muzaffarpur
Legal Reasoning
The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction with a prayer to quash an order No.E- 31014/2/85/ADI-/9221 dated 29.10.1985 passed by the Group 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.2745 of 2008 (2) dt.05-07-2013 2 / 5 Commandant, C.I.S.F. , Amannagar East Madras, whereby the petitioner was reverted to the post of constable from the post of Naik. The petitioner has claimed that he was originally appointed as constable and subsequently vide Annexure-1 i.e. an order dated 10th January, 1985 issued by the Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit MAMC, Durgapur, he was promoted to the rank of Lance Naik with effect from 01.01.1985 and thereafter on adhoc arrangement he was posted as Naik. While he was continuing on the post of Naik, the order impugned i.e. Annexure-3 was passed. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of Annexure-12 to the writ petition, whereby representation filed by the petitioner for allotment of seniority correctly was rejected by the Commandant, C.I.S.F. Hyderabad. Aggrieved with the rejection of his representation, the petitioner approached the D.G., CISF, New Delhi and by order dated 23.10.2006 vide Annexure-17 to the writ petition , the petitioner was informed that his application was forwarded to DIG/EZ vide N(A) letter No.E-31014 dated 26.08.2006 along with relevant documents. It was further indicated that the matter was under active consideration of the DIG/EZ & IG/ES. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite communication made by Annexure-17 to
Arguments
8. Group Commandant, C.I.S.F. Amananagar East, Madras 9. Commandant, C.I.S.F., BHEL, R.C. Puram, Hydrabad-32 .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Asoka Jang Bahadur For the Respondent/s : Mr. N.A.Shamsi ( A.S.G.) Mr. Sanjay Kumar (Cgc) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ------------------ 2 05-07-2013 Heard Sri Ashoka Jang Bahadur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.A.Shamsi , learned Assistant Solicitor General, who appears on behalf of all the Respondents.
Decision
the writ petition, till date no decision has been taken by either DIG 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.2745 of 2008 (2) dt.05-07-2013 3 / 5 or IG. It has been argued that once the petitioner was given regular promotion to the post of Lance Naik, without any opportunity being provided to the petitioner or without any reasonable cause, the authority concerned was not at all authorized to revert him on the post of constable. It has been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that so far as his reversion from the post of Naik to the post of Lance Naik is concerned, there may be no error , but fact remains that from the post of Naik he was directly reverted to the post of constable without recording any reason as to under what circumstances, he was reverted. Mr. N.A.Shamsi, learned Assistant Solicitor General has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. At the very outset, he argued that the order impugned i.e. Annexure-3 was passed long back in the year 1985 and after long delay in the year 2008, the petitioner approached this Court and, as such, the writ petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation. He further submits that subsequently the petitioner after being found fit in DPC, he has finally been promoted to the post of Naik. The learned Assistant Solicitor General has relied on averment made in the counter affidavit of Respondents. Controverting submission made by the learned Assistant Solicitor General , learned counsel for the petitioner 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.2745 of 2008 (2) dt.05-07-2013 4 / 5 submits that it is true that the order impugned i.e. Annexure-3 was passed in the year 1985, but immediately thereafter the petitioner raised his grievance before the competent authority and thereafter in the year 2002 his representation was rejected vide Annexure-12 to the writ petition. Even thereafter, the petitioner approached, DC, CISF and thereafter order was passed. By Annexure-17 i.e. order dated 23.10.2006 the petitioner was intimated that his case was under active consideration before the DIG/EZ and since after communication made from the DC CISF; no decision was taken by the authority concerned. The petitioner was left with no option, he approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Fact remains that in paragraph-22 of the writ petition, a specific statements was made by the petitioner that by Annexure-17 it was intimated that the matter was under active consideration before the DIG/EZ & IG/ES. This statement has been dealt with in paragraph-24 of the counter affidavit and a vague statement has been made that the same was not correct. In view of the fact that DC CISF himself had intimated vide Annexure-17 to the writ petition that the matter was under active consideration and till date, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, no decision has been taken, without recording any positive finding, it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.2745 of 2008 (2) dt.05-07-2013 5 / 5 petition with direction to the IG CISF to examine the case of the petitioner in its right perspective and decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt /production of a copy of this order. Before parting with this order, it would be appropriate to indicate that since the petitioner was promoted to the post of Lance Naik vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the order passed vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition by way of reverting the petitioner from the post of Naik to the post of constable appears to be not correct in accordance with law. With above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)