UMESH CHANDER PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order impugned dated 28.08.2009, passed by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition), rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for out of turn promotion in view of Government Order 1994. Further, a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to promote the Petitioner out of turn to the post of Inspector Civil Police w.e.f. 2000.

(2.) The Petitioner was appointed in Civil Police on the post of Sub Inspector and from time to time after 1995 he was posted at several places and when the Petitioner was posted as Station Officer of Police Station Attarsuiya, District Allahabad, he gun-down hardened criminal, namely, Samar Bahadur Singh alias Sajju Kana, who was having award of Rs. 5,000/- declared by the State of U.P. In the aforesaid incident, life of the Petitioner became in danger as bombs were thrown on him. The Petitioner was given a cash award of Rs. 5,000/- by the Deputy Director General of Police, Allahabad Range, Allahabad. The Superintendent of Police as well as the Senior Superintendent of Police recommended the claim for awarding out of turn promotion to the Petitioner. A magisterial enquiry was also made in respect of encounter of criminal Samar Bahadur Singh alias Sajju Kana and submitted a report on 11.07.2001, in which work of the Petitioner was appreciated. The Deputy Inspector General of Police has also recommended claim of the Petitioner for out of turn promotion on 19.06.2002. The claim of the Petitioner was rejected in spite of recommendation made by various authorities. Then, the Petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 35627 of 2005, which was finally decided by this Court on 01.10.2007, and the matter was remanded back to the Director General of Police for passing appropriate order in view of the observation made in the said judgment. The claim of the Petitioner has again been rejected vide impugned order (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) on the same ground mentioning therein that work of the Petitioner does not come under the purview of bravery and as it is not mentioned in the recommendation that what effort has been made by the Petitioner to kill the hardened criminal and whether he has died due to fire made by the Petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled to get out of turn promotion in view of Government Order dated 03.02.1994.

(3.) As regards achievement made by the Petitioner, it is not necessary to be mentioned in the present writ petition being the fact that in Writ Petition No. 35627 of 2005 a detailed mention has been made and this Court after considering various judgments has set aside the order and directed the authority to consider the claim of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with law that too within a period of three months.