LAXMI DATT Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is an echo of the agitation which was launched by the Delhi policemen in 1967. By this writ petition mandamus is sought against the respondents to consider the increase in the amount of subsistence allowance in terms of Fundamental Rule 53(1) (ii) (a) (i).

(2.) The petitioner is a Police Officer in the Delhi Police. It is alleged in the petition that on 14.4.1967 members of the Delhi Police Force under the guidance and leadership of the Delhi Police Non-gazetted Karamchari Sangh, waited on the Home Minister at his residence; respondent No. 1. It is further stated that many of the police people were arrested on 15.4.1967. The petitioner was, however, arrested on 17-4-1967, from Police Station Kotwali, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, in a case F.I.R. 284 of 1967, Police Station Kotwali and was lodged in Tehar Central Jail along with other members of Delhi Police Force numbering nearly 900. The petitioner having been arrested and confined to judicial custody became liable to be and was in fact suspended from service as from the date of his arrest i.e. 17.4.1967 and he is still under suspension. Similarly it is stated in the petition that other police men were suspended and cases against them started. The petition further alleges that the petitioner as well as other policemen were apprehensive that as there was no separation of judiciary from the executive in the Union Territory of Delhi they might not get fair trial if the presiding officers of the trial courts were to be under the administrative control of respondents 1 and 2 namely the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and the Delhi Administration. It was with this end in view that a number of transfer petitions were filed in the Supreme court. Some of those petitions namely 13-16, 22-26, and 27/67 came up for hearing before the Supreme court. On 30-8-1967 a statement was made before the Supreme court on behalf of the Delhi Administration that the cases against the petitioner and her policemen would be tried by the Magistrates drawn from States other than Delhi and Himachal Pradesh. It is further alleged that instead of immediately taking steps to secure presiding officers for the trial courts drawn from States other than Delhi and Himachal Pradesh respondents No. 1 and 2 constituted courts presided over by the Officers of other States who were already serving in Delhi for a number of years departments other than the courts although such officers had at one stage or the other had actually served respondent No. 2. The petitioner and others again apprehended that they may not get a fair trial and moved the Supreme Court by means of Cr. Misc. petition C.R.M.P. No. 1014 of 1967. This application was heard on 10-1-68, wherein on the statement made by the Attorney General of India, it was agreed that the case would be tried by the Magistrates to be drawn one from Rajasthan, one from Punjab and three from Uttar Pradesh. A copy of this order is annexure B to the petition. It is stated, however, that even after this, respondents 1 and 3 did not carry out strictly the undertaking given to the Supreme Court and appointed one Mr. K. K. Kalia as a Magistrate to try the cases. Objection having been taken before the Supreme Court to his appointment an order was passed in Crl. Misc. Petition No. 253 of 1968 on 11.4.1968. By this order it was noted that the State Government undertook to replace Mr. Kalia by another Magistrate from any of the other three states viz. Punjab, U. P. or Rajasthan who has not been on deputation to Delhi. Thereafter it seems the case of the petitioner and some others was placed before Mr. R. L. Sharma, Magistrate. Objection was taken to Mr. Sharmas trying the case on the ground that Mr. Sharma had at one time been on deputation with Delhi Administration and that this would be violation of the undertaking given to the Supreme court not to post a Magistrate to try the cases who had been on deputation with the Delhi Administration. This application for transfer was laid before the learned Sessions Judge who allowed it by his order dated 20.5.1968 directing that the cases of officials arising out of police agitation of April, 1967 which were pending in the court of Mr. Sharma might be transferred to any of the other three Magistrates already appointed or to some other Magistrate who may be appointed in place of Shri R L. Sharma. Thereafter the cases of the petitioner and others were placed before Shri M. N. Chandha Magistrate.

(3.) On 8-6-1968 the petitioner applied to the Superintendent of Police claiming an increase in subsistence allowance during the period of suspension in terms of Fundamental rule 53 Vol. I.A. copy of this application is marked annexure-E to the petition. The case of the petitioner was that he was not responsible for delay and, therefore, was entitled to increase in subsistence allowance. The petitioner is to said have sent reminders and having not heard from the respondents ultimately filed the present writ petition. In this writ petition it was claimed that increase in subsistence allowance is legitimately due under Fundamental rule 53 to the petitioner. Grievance was also made that in spite of the petitioners having so applied no action has been taken on this application of the petitioner. Return has been filed on behalf of the respondents by respondent No. 3, Inspector General of Police. The fact of the arrest of the petitioner and his having been placed under suspension is not disputed. Nor is it disputed that applications for transfer of the cases were made to the Supreme Court and the orders as given in the petitions were actually made by the Supreme Court. It is however, stated that the petitioner and the others filed those applications for transfer without any justification and that their apprehension was misconceived and was not well founded. It is denied that the respondents in any way acted in violation of the undertaking given before the Supreme Court. It was stated that the petitioner and his associates deliberately delayed the proceedings and the delay was attributable to the petitioner and as such the petitioner was not entitled to the increase in subsistence allowance. It was also stated that the order dated 13-8-68 had been passed by which the petitioners claims for increase of subsistence allowance has been rejected. A copy of this has been filed as annexure A to the return to the petition and reads as under:-