Suresh Kumar Sahoo v. Union of India & Ors.

1. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who are presently working on the posts ofInspectors with the CRPF, praying inter alia for issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondents, for appointing them in December, 2003, as Sub-Inspector i.e. the date on which their batch mates of the SSC 2002 examination were appointed and subsequently, promote them tothe rank ofInspectors w.e.f. the year 2007 and to thepostofAssistant Commandants with effect from 2015, with all consequential benefits including the benefits under the old pension scheme which was applicable till31®^ December, 2003.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue raised in the present petitions is squarely covered by a judgment dated 2^^ November, 2012 pronounced by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C). 3827/2012 entitled Naveen Kumar Jha v. Union of India and Ors.. He submits that the said decision has taken note of the earlier judgment dated 26^'' May, 2011, pronounced by a Division Bench in W.P.(C).5400/2010 entitled Avinash Singh v. Union of India & Ors. wherein on the subject of delay in conducting Review Medical Boards, it was held that if the appointment is by selection, then the seniority of the entire batch has to be reckoned with respect to the merit position obtained in the selection and not on the fortuitous circumstance on the date on which a person is made to join.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein cannot lose out their seniority merely because their Review W.Ps.(C) 1886, 1902 & 1904 of 2016 Page 2 of[3] Medical Boards were conducted by the respondents belatedly. He states that before filing the present petition, all the petitioners have submitted representations to the respondents requesting them to reconsider their seniority, but to no avail.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the representations of the petitioners are still pending, then they shall be considered and a speaking order shall be passed within a reasonable time.

5. In view of the aforesaid submission, the present petitions are disposed of with directions issued to the respondents to consider the petitioners' pending representation in accordance with law and in the light of the judicial pronouncement in the case of Naveen Kumar Jha fsupra). which is stated to have attained finality as vide order of 12*^ August, 2013 passed in CC No.3827/2012, entitled U.O.I. & Ors. v. Naveen Kumar Jha. the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondents- UOI, was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

6. Needful shall be done within six weeks from today under written intimation to the petitioners. If the grievance of the petitioners still survives, then they shall be at liberty to seektheir remedies in accordance with law. HIMA KOHLI, J SUNIL GAUR, J MARCH 09, 2016 s