SHYAM LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for various directions. Principally, he seeks quashing of the impugned Office Memorandum dated 05.11.2013 which turned down his request for protection of seniority.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that the petitioner joined the Indo Tibetan Border Police ("ITBP") as Head Constable in 1986; he was promoted subsequently as Subedar Major (Official Language) on 12.12.2005. In the normal course, the ITBP has elicited applications from its employees for deployment to the United Nations Mission at Congo in 2011. The petitioner was one among the serving employees who applied. He was selected by the concerned authorities and later deployed to the Mission on 29.08.2011. At the time when the petitioner was asked to join the Mission apparently an undertaking was obtained - based upon the ITBP's then understanding that the petitioner would be "willing to proceed in UN Mission.......... in the present rank and on return from UN Mission Congo" would not claim seniority. The background for this was that the petitioner and other employees were at the time of their deployment eligible for consideration for promotion. In the petitioner's case, the promotion was to the post of Assistant Commandant. Further, admitted facts are that as a consequence of the petitioner's deployment, his name was not recommended for the pre -promotional course which every employee desirous of promotion is required to clear. Equally, when he did return, the petitioner availed the first opportunity and cleared the pre -promotional test in the very first available attempt eventually in 2012. He was later promoted as Assistant Commandant. He approached the ITBP requesting the enforcement of its Instructions containing in Standing Order No. 1/92 dated 22.07.1992 and argued that since his absence was not on his own volition, the contingencies visualized in the said Standing Order applied and that he ought to be given due seniority from the date his juniors (in the rank of Subedar Major) were promoted as Assistant Commandant. This was turned down by the impugned order which reads as follows: -

(3.) IN view of the above facts the request made by the above Officer regarding seniority protection has not been acceded to by the Competent Authority. It is, therefore, requested that above Officer may be informed accordingly.