Raj Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
service-promotion-post of inspector of police-unless a promotion is made on a regular basis w.e.f. date of initial appointment period of officiation and ad-hoc promotion cannot be taken into account for purposes of computing seniority since officiating on a post does not confer substantive or legal right of promotion-however, if regularisation is made w.e.f. from date of initial appointment/promotion same shall be taken into account for purpose of computing seniority-petitioner was promoted on 30st october, 1981 as sub-inspector and at that time promotion was not required to be made by central selection board-petitioner and similarly situated other persons were granted benefit of promotion as sub-inspector w.e.f. their initial date of promotion and even consequential orders were passed-respondents cannot discriminate petitioner and deny same benefit-petition allowed with consequential benefits. - constitution of india article 215: [m. karpaga vinayagam, cjm, .y.eqbal & amareshwar sahay, r.k. merathia, narendra nath tiwari, jj] contempt proceedings review powers of high court held, article 215 of the constitution vests the high court with all the powers of court of record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of contemner/lawyer before high court as well as courts under its jurisdiction is based on his repeated convictions for contempt in the past is not violative of article 19(g) of the constitution. no interference in exercise of review jurisdiction is warranted. orderajit kumar sinha, j.1. the present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction on the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of inspector of police with effect from the date, the persons junior to him have been considered in the meeting dated 12.8.2006 and promoted by order issued vide memo no. 1662 dated 27.9.2006, treating the petitioner's date of promotion as sub-inspector of police with effect from 30.10.1981 in view of seniority fixed by the respondents vide memo no. 6698 dated 13.9.1997, in compliance of the order passed by the hon'ble court which has been affirmed by the hon'ble supreme court, with all consequential benefits such as seniority, arrears of salary etc.2. the main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that he was promoted as sub-inspector of police w.e.f. 30.10.1981 and thus he was entitled to be considered for promotion to the rank of inspector of police in view of the fact that all sub-inspector of police of general category up to 1984 batch were considered by the d.g. board for promotion to the post of inspector disregarding the claim of the petitioner.3. the petitioner has also referred to order no. 2790/97 issued by d.i.g. wherein it has been specifically held / recorded that in compliance to the order passed by the hon'ble high court their seniority will be computed based on the date on which they were appointed as sub-inspector. the name of the petitioner figures at sl. no. 129 and in column - 2 it has been mentioned that his date of promotion to the post of sub-inspector was 30.10.81.4. the counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the order passed on 8.5.06 by the hon'ble division bench in a batch of matters to which the petitioner was also a party a direction was issued to the respondent to compute the seniority of the petitioners in the rank of sub-inspector from the date of their initial officiation as sub-inspector and even the s.l.p. (civil) no. 7286-7292/97 7286-7292/97 along with other connected matters preferred against it was dismissed and thus the order dated 08.05.06 attained finality and was binding qua the parties and several others similarly situated s.i. have already benefited by the said judgment.5. he has also referred to subsequent orders passed by this court in w.p. (s) no. 6893/04 dated 6.9.2006 followed by orders passed by this court on 18.3.2009 in w.p.(s) no. 5496/07 and other connected matters wherein directions were issued to treat the petitioners as sub-inspector w.e.f. the date on which they joined the post.6. the respondents in their counter-affidavit have submitted that under rule 659(e) of the police manual rules, a regular promotion to the rank of sub-inspector of police can only be granted by the central selection board constituted at the police headquarter level and as such promotion given to the petitioner w.e.f. 30.10.81 cannot be treated as valid.7. the respondent further submits that the hon'ble supreme court has consistently held that seniority cannot be claimed on the promoted post, if it was held on officiating and or ad-hoc basis. the same can only be computed from the date of regular and substantive promotion.8. i have considered the pleadings and the submission. the admitted fact remains that the petitioner was promoted on 30.10.81 as sub-inspector and at that time the promotion was not required to be made by the central selection board which was only brought into effect from 1989.9. the fact remains that the writ petitions were allowed by the hon'ble division bench in favour of the petitioner and even the s.l.p. (civil appeal) preferred against it was also dismissed and thus the order for all purposes in those proceeding has become final and binding.10. i have no doubt in my mind with regard to the settled law that unless a promotion is made on a regular basis w.e.f. the date of initial appointment the period of officiation and ad-hoc promotion cannot be taken into account for the purposes of computing the seniority since officiating on a post does not confer the substantive or legal right of promotion. however, if the regularization is made w.e.f. from the date of initial appointment/promotion the same shall be taken into account for the purpose of computing the seniority.11. be that as it may the fact remains that the ground denying the promotion w.e.f. 30.10.81 is also on the face of it erroneous, since the central selection board was constituted at the police head quarters under jharkhand police manual rule in 659(e) only w.e.f. 1989 and the same cannot be applied retrospectively.12. however, in view of the directions issued by the hon'ble division bench vide its order dated 8.5.1996 whereby the petitioner and similarly situated other persons were granted the benefit of promotion as sub-inspector w.e.f. their initial date of promotion and even consequential orders were passed and thus the respondent themselves have implemented the judgment of the hon'ble high court and they cannot discriminate the petitioner and deny the same benefit. even otherwise this court in a series of judgments has allowed the writs of similarly situated persons.13. in the facts and circumstance of the case, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to compute the seniority w.e.f. 30.04.1981 and extend the consequential benefits.

Judgment:
ORDER

Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction on the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police with effect from the date, the persons junior to him have been considered in the meeting dated 12.8.2006 and promoted by order issued vide memo No. 1662 dated 27.9.2006, treating the petitioner's date of promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 30.10.1981 in view of seniority fixed by the respondents vide memo No. 6698 dated 13.9.1997, in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Court which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, with all consequential benefits such as seniority, arrears of salary etc.

2. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that he was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police w.e.f. 30.10.1981 and thus he was entitled to be considered for promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police in view of the fact that all Sub-Inspector of Police of general category up to 1984 batch were considered by the D.G. Board for promotion to the post of Inspector disregarding the claim of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has also referred to order No. 2790/97 issued by D.I.G. wherein it has been specifically held / recorded that in compliance to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court their seniority will be computed based on the date on which they were appointed as Sub-Inspector. The name of the petitioner figures at Sl. No. 129 and in column - 2 it has been mentioned that his date of promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector was 30.10.81.

4. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the order passed on 8.5.06 by the Hon'ble Division Bench in a batch of matters to which the petitioner was also a party a direction was issued to the respondent to compute the seniority of the petitioners in the rank of Sub-Inspector from the date of their initial officiation as Sub-Inspector and even the S.L.P. (Civil) No. 7286-7292/97 7286-7292/97 along with other connected matters preferred against it was dismissed and thus the order dated 08.05.06 attained finality and was binding qua the parties and several others similarly situated S.I. have already benefited by the said judgment.

5. He has also referred to subsequent orders passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6893/04 dated 6.9.2006 followed by orders passed by this Court on 18.3.2009 in W.P.(S) No. 5496/07 and other connected matters wherein directions were issued to treat the petitioners as Sub-Inspector w.e.f. the date on which they joined the post.

6. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have submitted that under Rule 659(e) of the Police Manual Rules, a regular promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police can only be granted by the Central Selection Board constituted at the Police Headquarter level and as such promotion given to the petitioner w.e.f. 30.10.81 cannot be treated as valid.

7. The respondent further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that seniority cannot be claimed on the promoted post, if it was held on officiating and or ad-hoc basis. The same can only be computed from the date of regular and substantive promotion.

8. I have considered the pleadings and the submission. The admitted fact remains that the petitioner was promoted on 30.10.81 as Sub-Inspector and at that time the promotion was not required to be made by the Central Selection Board which was only brought into effect from 1989.

9. The fact remains that the writ petitions were allowed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in favour of the petitioner and even the S.L.P. (Civil Appeal) preferred against it was also dismissed and thus the order for all purposes in those proceeding has become final and binding.

10. I have no doubt in my mind with regard to the settled law that unless a promotion is made on a regular basis w.e.f. the date of initial appointment the period of officiation and ad-hoc promotion cannot be taken into account for the purposes of computing the seniority since officiating on a post does not confer the substantive or legal right of promotion. However, if the regularization is made w.e.f. from the date of initial appointment/promotion the same shall be taken into account for the purpose of computing the seniority.

11. Be that as it may the fact remains that the ground denying the promotion w.e.f. 30.10.81 is also on the face of it erroneous, since the Central Selection Board was constituted at the Police Head Quarters under Jharkhand Police Manual Rule in 659(e) only w.e.f. 1989 and the same cannot be applied retrospectively.

12. However, in view of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide its order dated 8.5.1996 whereby the petitioner and similarly situated other persons were granted the benefit of promotion as Sub-Inspector w.e.f. their initial date of promotion and even consequential orders were passed and thus the respondent themselves have implemented the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court and they cannot discriminate the petitioner and deny the same benefit. Even otherwise this Court in a series of judgments has allowed the Writs of similarly situated persons.

13. In the facts and circumstance of the case, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to compute the seniority w.e.f. 30.04.1981 and extend the consequential benefits.