M SHASHIKANTH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the second respondent-Assistant Inspector General (PERS), Office of the Director General, CISF, 13, CGOS Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003, dated 6. 8. 2003, granting Senior Time Scale of Pay with effect from 22. 07. 2003, the petitioner-M. Shashikanth has filed the above writ petition to quash the same, inasmuch as it denies Senior Time Scale of pay to him retrospectively, as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to grant Senior Time Scale of pay to him from the date of his junior Ganga Shankar, who was granted the same with effect from 06. 05. 2002, with arrears of pay and consequential benefits.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: according to the petitioner, he was appointed as an Assistant Commandant in Central Industrial Security Force with effect from 04. 09. 1997, having been selected through the Civil Services Examination in 1996. Thereafter, he was initially posted to KAPS, Kakrapar (Gujarat) and then to 8th Reserve Battalion, Kishthwar, (Jammu and Kashmir ). Later, he was sent to undergo Battalion Support Weapon (Officers') Course at Infantry School, Mhow, Madhya Pradesh, between 25. 10. 2001 to 08. 12. 2001. While undergoing such training, according to him, his father fell seriously ill and, on 21. 11. 2001, he developed heart problem leading to hospitalisation in the emergency care unit. Since his mother, brother and sister had gone to U. S. A. , there was no one in the family to attend his father and he rushed to Hyderabad. Thereafter, he contacted the directing staff of the Infantry School on telephone to seek permission to proceed on leave, but the same was refused. In view of the emergent situation, he left for Hyderabad on 22. 11. 2001 without the permission of the competent authority. He tried to contact the authorities even from Hyderabad, but did not succeed. Later on 24. 11. 2001, he sent a letter to the Group Commander BHW (O), informing him of the compelling reasons due to which he had to leave from the Infantry School.

(3.) WHEN the petitioner reported back at the Infantry School on 08. 12. 2001, he was not allowed to join. He explained that his absence was not wilful and was under the circumstances beyond his control. On 08. 07. 2002, an adverse remark was communicated to him and it was noted in the Confidential Reports for the period from 29. 09. 2001 to 31. 3. 2002. The report stated that his absence between 22. 11. 2001 and 13. 12. 2001 was a shortcoming. He was informed that he can make representation against the adverse remarks.