Jaism Ram & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

1. On May 11, 2015 a batch ofwrit petitions filed by persons holding ranks of Constable, Head Constable, Assistant Sub-Inspector and Sub- Inspector in Sahastra Seema Bal were disposed ofby us on the issue oftheir entitlement to thebenefit of the first, second and third financial upgradation W.P.(C) No.5339/2015 &conn.matter Page 1of[3] 2015:DHC:11042-DB y under the ACP Scheme notified in the year 1999 and the MACP Scheme notified in the year 2008. The order reads as under

1. All petitioners except Ramesh Chandra the writ petitioner of W.P.(C) 4636/2015 are either serving or have retired as enrolled members ofthe Force: Sahastra Seema Bal which originally was known as Special Service Bureau. The Cadre Controlling Authority for both being the Ministry of Home Affairs.

2. Petitioners hold different ranks or have retired from different ranks such as Constable, Head Constable, Assistant Sub Inspector and Sub Inspector.

3. The claim ofsomepetitioners is togrant offirstfinancial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme who didnotearnpromotion withinfirst 12years ofservice and thereafter to the benefit of the secondfinancial upgradation on rendering 24years service if no second promotion in the next 12 years was granted, which period got reduces to 20 years service under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme. The claim of some is to the benefit of the second upgradation.

4. ^Some petitioners had worked as Naiks which post was abolished and they were re-mustered as Head Constables.

5. The writ petitions have not been preceded by a representation to the respondents calling upon to the respondents to take a reasoned decision with respect to the petitioners' entitlements under the Assured Career Progression Scheme notified on August 19, 1999 as also the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme which was notified somewhere in the year 2008.

6. It is trite that where mandamus is claimed the writ petition must be preceded by a representation to the statutory authority drawing attention ofthe statutory authority to such facts which the representee wants the authority to consider. This would enjoin upon the authority concerned to decide the W.P.(C) No.5339/2015 &conn.matter 2of[3] % representation with a reasoned decision.

7. Under the circumstances we dispose ofall writ petitions issuing a direction to the respondents to treat the writ petitions as a representation and pass a reasoned order. Qua such petitioners whose representations are accepted, full or inpart, necessarypayment with arrears shall be disbursed. Those who are receivingpension will be entitled to theirpension beingrefixed in view ofthe decisiontaken.

8. Necessary decision be taken within 12 weeks from today and communicated to the petitioners. Needless to state if the petitioners or anyone of them is/are aggrieved by the decision taken theywould be entitledto the remedy as per law.

9. No costs.

10. Dasti.

2. The petitioners of the above captioned petitions are also claiming entitlement under the ACP and MACP Scheme.

3. The above captioned petitions are disposed of declaring that the directions issued in paragraph 7 and 8 of the decision dated May 11, 2015, contents whereof have been noted by us in paragraph 1 above would be treated as directions issued even in the above captioned petitions.

4. No costs.

PRADEEP NANBRA^OG, J. mamta ^RATIBHARANI, J. MAY 25,2015 W.P.(C) No.5339/2015 &comi.matter Page 3of[3]