Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 2nd June, 2011
ASI (M) KAMLESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mrs. Jyoti Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Dinesh Yadav and Mr. N.S.
Bajwa, Advocates
Through: Ms.Anjana Gosain, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
JUDGMENT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Counter affidavit has not been filed, but learned counsel for the respondents places reliance on clause 2 of para 9.15 of the Establishment Manual of CRPF to negate the claim predicated by the petitioner.
2. Admittedly, on being selected, after completing the mandatory course, vide a Signal dated 13.04.2010 the petitioner was promoted from the post of ASI to SI(M) pertaining to the vacancy year 2010-2011. On promotion, the petitioner was allotted RTC-II AVADI vide Signal dated 23.04.2010. 2011:DHC:3117-DB
3. Citing compelling domestic circumstances on account of the wife of the petitioner being unwell and small children being required to be looked after, petitioner made a request under Rule 17.12 of the Establishment Manual praying that either his posting order, on promotion, be cancelled or in the alternatively, the promotion be kept in abeyance and alternative that petitioner was willing to forgo his promotion for a period of one year or till a vacancy arises.
4. It is apparent that the petitioner made three alternatives so that he could continue to stay at the place of his current posting.
5. Considering the request made by the petitioner and accepting the third alternative, on 14.05.2010 an office order was issued which reads as under:
6. It is apparent from a reading of second paragraph of the office order that the third alternative suggested by the petitioner was accepted by the department.
7. Now, the respondents require the petitioner to recompete at the competition examination for the next year.
8. Petitioner states that he has already earned a promotion and that he is entitled to the benefit of the order dated 14th May, 2010 which expressly records that petitioner would be promoted in the next year vacancy or a vacancy which may accrue thereafter, whichever event happens first.
9. The rule on which the respondents would rely reads as under:-
10. It is apparent that there is a conflict in the decision taken by the respondents and the requirement of the rule.
11. But, what weighs in favour of the petitioner is that the Department gave an assurance to the petitioner that if he forgoes his promotion for one year they would promote him after the year was over or till a vacancy arose, whichever is later. Had the Department told the petitioner that he would be forgoing the benefit of promotion for all times to come which he had earned by not joining at the place where he was required to so do post promotion, the petitioner could have decided whether it was worthwhile to forgo a promotion at the cost of domestic happiness. In our opinion having led the petitioner to a belief that he would be promoted the next year or till a vacancy arises, whichever is later, respondents cannot turn the table against the petitioner and thus we dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to comply with the assurance made in its order dated 14th May, 2010.
12. Needful would be done within a period of six weeks from today.
13. No costs. CM No.6951/2011(stay) Disposed of as infructuous.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J SURESH KAIT, J JUNE 2, 2011