The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5572 of 2016 1. Nishat Ahmad, son of Late Ekramul Haque, resident of Hashmia Colony, Lohsingha, P.O: Sadar, P.S: Sadar, Dist: Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, presently posted as Police Constable in Special Task Force (STF), Ranchi, Jharkhand; 2. Bankatesh Kumar, son of Sri Raghav Sharma, resident of Village - Haibaspur, P.O: Haspura, P.S: Haspura, Dist: Aurangabad, Bihar, presently posted as Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Ranchi, Jharkhand; 3. Satish Chandra Jha, son of Late Amarnath Jha, resident of Village- Dumra, P.O: Dumra, P.S: Majorganj, Dist: Sitamarhi, Bihar, presently posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Silli, Ranchi, Jharkhand; 4. Parmeshwar Prasad, son of Mahadeo Prajapati, resident of Village- Nauranga, P.O: Nauranga, P.S: Sadar, Dist: Gaya, Bihar, presently posted as Inspector of Police, Dhanbad, Jharkhand; 5. Pran Ranjan Kumar, son of Sri Madan Murari Prasad Singh, resident of Village- Gangeya, P.O: Gangeya Nawada, P.S: Katra, Dist: Muzaffarpur, Bihar, presently posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand; 6. Deonath Pandey, son of Late Janak Pandey, resident of Village- Gorpa, P.O: Diliyan, P.S: Chauri, Dist: Bhojpur (Arrah), Bihar, presently posted as Inspector of Police, Police Training Center, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand; 7. Arvind Kumar Sinha, son of Late Nirbhay Prasad, resident of Sinha House, Mohalla - New Area, Piparpanti, P.O: GPO, P.S: Kotwali, Dist: Gaya, Bihar, presently posted as Inspector of Police, at Bokaro, Petitioners Jharkhand; … … Versus 1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi, P.O. & P.S: New Delhi, New Delhi; 2. Under Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi, P.O. & P.S: New Delhi, New Delhi; 3. State of Jharkhand; through the Principal Secretary to Hon'ble the Governor, Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S: Ranchi, Dist: Ranchi, Jharkhand; 4. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S: Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi, Jharkhand; 5. Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S: Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi, Jharkhand; 6. Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S: Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi, Jharkhand; 7. Inspector General of Police, Human Rights, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S: Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi, Jharkhand; 8. Inspector General of Police, Headquarters, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S: Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi, Jharkhand; 1 9. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Human Rights, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S: Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi, Jharkhand; 10. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Training, PTC, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S: Hazaribagh, Dist: Hazaribagh, Jharkhand; 11. Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur Range, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S: Hazaribagh, Dist: Hazaribagh, Jharkhand; 12. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S: Hazaribagh, Dist: Hazaribagh, Jharkhand; 13. Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh, P.O: Hazaribagh, P.S: Hazaribagh, Dist: Hazaribagh, Jharkhand … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners For the UOI For the State --- : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate : Mrs. Niki Sinha, CGC : Mr. Navneet Toppo, AC to GP-I --- 13/23.08.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "a) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of 'Certiorari' for quashing the Order dated 18.02.2016, passed by the Under Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Resp No.2), whereby and whereunder, the recommendation of petitioners for the President Police Medal has been rejected, on non-est ground. And/Or b) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction (s) in the nature of 'Mandamus' commanding the Respondents for considering the case of the Petitioners for the President Police Medal, since similarly situated persons have been granted the President Police Medal, whereas the petitioners have been deprived of the same. And/Or c) For further direction upon the respondent authorities to grant out of turn promotion to the petitioners in view of the provision as rendered in Rule 660 (C) of the Police Manual, along with all the consequential benefits with statutory and penal interest." Argument of the petitioners. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are primarily aggrieved by the fact that the respondent- State did not take steps for recommending the name of the petitioners for Presidential Police Medal for Gallantry (PPMG) along with other persons who were identically placed, on account of which the said award could not be conferred upon the petitioners. The learned counsel submits that the Presidential Police Medal for Gallantry is not 2 just a medal, but huge prestige is attached to the same which also entitles such awardees to have out of turn promotion in terms of Rule 660-C of the Police Manual and therefore, the petitioners are highly prejudiced by the conduct of the State. 4. While giving the background of the case, the learned counsel submits that on 05.12.2003, a bold encounter took place in the district of Bokaro whereby a small police team which included the petitioners took on a huge contingent of 150 to 200 heavily armed naxalites and one top naxalite leader was killed and huge arms, ammunitions and cash were recovered. In the incident, unfortunately one police constable lost his life and five police personnel including some of the petitioners received gunshot injuries. 5. In the year 2004, the then Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh recommended the name of 13 persons including the present petitioners for presidential medal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hazaribagh who, in turn, agreed with the recommendation and forwarded the same to Deputy Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters at Ranchi. Eventually, said recommendation was forwarded to the Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand. The Home Department, Government of Jharkhand released an office order whereby out of 13 persons, 9 persons including the petitioners were granted Jharkhand Chief Ministerial Medal. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that four persons names were recommended for Presidential Medal, but the petitioners were left out by giving only Jharkhand Chief Ministerial Medal. Being aggrieved, the petitioners made representation on 01.01.2006 which was considered after expiry of five years on 22.06.2011 and a 2nd recommendation was made whereby name of five persons was recommended for the Presidential Medal. However, the name of the petitioners was not considered. 7. The petitioner no.1 filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No. 536 of 2013 for consideration of his case for Presidential Medal and during the pendency of the writ petition when it came to the knowledge of the respondents, the name of the petitioner no.1 was 3 recommended for presidential medal and consequently, he withdrew
Decision
the writ petition. 8. With respect to the petitioner no.1 , the Under Secretary, Government of India issued a letter to the Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand dated 21.10.2013 for furnishing the representation of individuals and separate proposal on prescribed proforma for the award of Presidential Medal and integrity certificate of the petitioner was also called for vide letter dated 05.03.2014. However, before the name of petitioner no. 1 could be considered for Presidential Award the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh forwarded fresh recommendation for grant of Presidential Award for 7 persons who are petitioners before this court including petitioner no. 1. 9. The Under Secretary, Government of India issued a letter dated 15.04.2015 seeking an explanation from the Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand as to why and under what circumstances, there was a change in view after 10 years for recommendation of remaining 7 police personnel for award of Presidential Medal. The State Government was further directed to furnish the said reply along with magisterial enquiry of the incident dated 05.12.2003 for which the names were recommended. A response was sent by the Inspector General (Human Rights), Jharkhand vide letter dated 30.07.2015 that at the relevant point of time, the magisterial enquiry was not done as at that point of time the magisterial enquiry was not required to be conducted. In response, the Under Secretary, Government of India issued letter dated 04.09.2015 asking the Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand to conduct the magisterial enquiry of the incident and furnish a copy of the same for further processing of the proposal. Ultimately, the magisterial enquiry report was forwarded vide letter dated 26.11.2015 and integrity certificates were also forwarded vide letter dated 11.01.2016. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that ultimately on 18.02.2016, the Under Secretary, Government of India sent a letter to the Principal Secretary, Home Department, 4 Government of Jharkhand stating therein that proposal with regard to the petitioners for grant of PPMG after careful consideration has not been approved and thereby, it has been rejected. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were a part of the same operation which had taken place on 05.12.2003 and the documents on record reveal that the petitioners’ participation stood on same footing as those persons who were already granted Presidential Award pursuant to the earlier recommendation and therefore, the only reason for non-consideration of the claim of the petitioners for Presidential Medal was delay on the part of the State. The learned counsel submits that such delay has caused irreparable loss and injury to the petitioners not only in terms of promotional avenues , but also in terms of the prestige involved and recognition with respect to the risk they had undertaken to encounter the hardened naxalites and therefore, the petitioners at this stage are only seeking compensation. Argument of the respondent State. 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State has submitted that a supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed in the present case dated 20.08.2024 wherein in paragraph 6, it has been stated that it is difficult to ascertain and determine as to why the names of the petitioners were not recommended for the Presidential Award as 19 years have already elapsed since 2005. However, it has been submitted that the petitioners have been suitably awarded by the prestigious Jharkhand Chief Minister Bravery Award for the same gallant action. It has also been mentioned that so far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, the bravery award was granted vide memo no. 446 dated 13.11.2001 and he has also been given advance increment as well as a cash award of Rs. 7,000/- along with the medal. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents has further referred to paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit to submit that awarding a medal by the State Government and Government of India is an honour and there is no legal right on any police personnel whose name have been 5 recommended and there is no such provision for grant of compensation in such cases where the medal is not conferred. 14. The learned counsel for the State has also submitted that there are numerous instances where the recommendation has been made, but the medal has not been ultimately conferred. The learned counsel has further submitted that not all recommendations are accepted by Government of India due to scrutiny at various levels which are based on intelligence and other confidential reports, but certainly the same would not reflect in the order declining to give the award. 15. The learned counsel, at the same time, submits that he is not aware as to what transpired at the level of Union of India for ultimately not granting the Presidential award. He submits that the same was certainly considered in view of the fact that petitioner no. 1 had filed a writ petition and pursuant to which his matter was considered and while his matter was considered, the cases of other persons were also considered and the required magisterial report which was called for by the Union of India was also sent. 16. The learned counsel for the State has referred to the letter dated 21st October 2013 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, in particular paragraphs 3 and 4, to submit that initially the name of four persons were recommended who were involved in the same gallant action and the Union of India had initially declined to grant the Award and subsequently, it was considered afresh and five persons were granted the Award including one person who had died during the operation. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said letter are quoted as under: "3. As regards to Charchu PS Case No. 11/03 dated 06.12.2003, it is intimated that earlier State Govt. of Jharkhand vide letter dated 19/11/2005 had sent a proposal for award of PPMG to S/Shri Anurag Gupta, SP, Hemant Toppo, Dy.SP, Arun Kumar Dubey, Inspector and Naresh Prasad, SI for the action dated 05/12/2003. This proposal was rejected by CPAC. It was intimated by the State Govt. of Jharkhand that nine other personnel who had participated in the operation were recommended for award of Chief Minister's Medal for Gallantry on the occasion of Jharkhand Raising Day i.e. 15th November. 4. Thereafter State Govt. of Jharkhand vide letter dated 7th June, 2012 had requested for reconsideration of the case for award of gallantry medal in respect of above four police officers/personnel including one addition recommended i.e. late Shri Lutu Banra, Ct for the action dated 05/12/2003. The CPAC awarded PMG to S/Shri Hemant Toppo, Dy.SP, 6 Naresh Prasad Sharma, SI and late Lutu Banara, CT only. The State Govt. of Jharkhand neither in the initial proposal nor in the reconsideration case recommended Shri Nisar Ahmad, CT for award of PPMG. Now without mentioning the facts and without relevant information on prescribed proforma, State Govt. has recommended him for award of gallantry medal." Argument of Union of India 17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India has submitted a counter-affidavit has been filed on their behalf and it has been mentioned therein that the case of the petitioners was considered by the competent authority in the meeting of Central Police Award Committee who considered the citations, but did not recommend the present petitioners for the Award. The learned counsel submits that their claim was reconsidered but no recommendation was made by Central Police Award Committee. 18. Learned counsel for the Union of India has referred to the communication of the Government of India to the Principal Secretary, Home Department dated 19.02.2016 and submits that their matter was carefully considered in the ministry and then it was not approved. The learned counsel submits that no reason is required to be assigned because it is just an award and the matter has been carefully considered. Findings of this Court 19. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the Presidential Police Medal for Gallantry (PPMG) is certainly not a right of one or the other police personnel. The same is an award whereby the gallant action of the various police personnel are considered and recognized. This Court finds that the gallant involved in the present case is dated 05.12.2003 and it has come on record that altogether 13 persons were involved in the said gallant action in which top Naxalite leader was also killed. In connection with the said incident, names of 13 persons were recommended including the petitioners at various levels of the State so that their name could be forwarded to the Central Government for the purposes of consideration of Presidential Award. However, it appears 7 that initially name of only four persons was forwarded at the top level of the State of Jharkhand. The counter-affidavit does not disclose the reason for not sending the name of all the persons involved. The initial recommendation for four persons was declined, however, their case was again recommended along with one more person who had expired during the operation and ultimately, five persons were conferred the Presidential Medal. 20. The petitioner no. 1 had filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No. 536 of 2013 and ultimately his case for the presidential medal was recommended. While the matter of petitioner no.1 was under consideration and some queries were made by the Union of India, the name of all the other petitioners was sent for consideration for grant of presidential medal. The Union of India called for an explanation with regard to delay in making the recommendations and also called for magisterial enquiry report with respect to the incident. When the state government informed the Union of India that neither there was any requirement to conduct magisterial enquiry at the relevant point of time nor such enquiry was conducted, a direction was issued by the Union of India to conduct a magisterial enquiry and send the report. Consequently, the State Government sent the required magisterial enquiry report with regard to the incident. The matter regarding grant of Presidential Award was placed for consideration before the concerned committee and Union of India ultimately issued communication dated 18.02.2016 that the recommendation for grant of Presidential Award was not approved. Said communication dated 18.02.2016 is quoted as under: "To The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi Subject:- Award of Gallantry Medal to S/Shri Bankatesh Kumar, SI, Satish Chandra Jha, SI, Arvind Kumar Sinha, SI, Pran Ranjan Kumar, SI, Parmeshwar Prasad, SI, Deonath Pandey, SI and Nishat Ahmad, CT for the action dated 05/12/2003 near Narkandi Village, PS- Gomia, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No- 8/M- 405/2013-3863 dated 31/07/2013, 15/M-17/2014/02 dated 8 01/01/2015 and 15/M-27/2013-7713 dated 21/11/2014 on the subject and to say that the above proposal was considered carefully in this Ministry but it is regretted that the same has not been approved. Yours faithfully, S/d (18/2/16) (Raman Kumar) Under Secretary to the Govt. of India Tele: 23094009" 21. From the perusal of the aforesaid communication and from the perusal of the materials on record, there can be no doubt that the case of the petitioners was considered on merits, though belatedly. Accordingly, the argument of the petitioners that their case was not considered on account of delay or any act / omission on the part of the state, is not correct. The facts reveal that in spite of delay on the part of the state in recommending the names of the petitioners, the Union of India called for a magisterial report and upon being sent by the state the case was considered on merits and grant of Presidential Award was not approved. 22. The fact also remains that the gallantry award has been conferred on the petitioners namely, 'Jharkhand Chief Ministerial Medal'. 23. This Court is of the considered view that once the case of the petitioners has been considered and not approved, there is no further scope for issuing any direction upon the respondents. Accordingly, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition. Since the case of the petitioners was considered on merits and conferment of Presidential Award was regretted by Union of India, there is no occasion to grant any compensation to the petitioners with regard to the delay or act/omission which had taken place from the side of the State in recommending the name of the petitioners for consideration for grant of Presidential Award. 24. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 25. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Pankaj/AFR 9 (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)