SANJAY PANDEY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 03/03/2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai and the order dated 18/07/2014 passed by the Tribunal in the Review Petition preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner had also prayed for quashing and setting aside order dated 03/09/2014 passed by the respondents putting the petitioner on compulsory wait. The petitioner thereby claimed the relief that the respondents be directed to immediately and forthwith consider the petitioner for promotion to the rank of ADGP effective from the date his batch-mates were promoted to the said rank and in accordance with law and to grant the petitioner all consequential benefits accruing thereof.

(2.) During the pendency of the Petition, the respondents issued an order dated 29/10/2016 which had the effect of revoking the G.R. dated 15/02/2007. By G.R. dated 15/02/2007, the period from 12/04/2000 to 30/06/2002 was regularized by granting extraordinary leave and his absence from 01/07/2002 to 25/09/2006 was treated as on duty. By the order dated 29/10/2016, the petitioner's absence from 12/04/2000 to 31/01/2003 was treated as dies-non. The period from 01/02/2003 to 25/09/2006 was treated as on duty. By this order dated 29/10/2016, it is further provided that as the period from 12/04/2000 to 31/01/2003 is treated as dies- non, the petitioner is eligible for grant of deemed date of promotion to the post of Additional Director General of Police ('ADGP' for short) from 04/10/2014. In view of subsequent developments now the petitioner's grievance is limited to prayer clause (b) of the Petition viz. consider the petitioner for promotion to the rank of ADGP from the date his batchmates were promoted and for consequential benefits and also for quashing and setting aside the order dated 29/10/2016.

(3.) Before we proceed to state the facts, it would be material to mention that the petitioner initially succeeded in OA No. 1470 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi Bench. In compliance of the Tribunal's order dated 01/03/2005, the Tribunal while disposing of MA No. 1649 of 2006 filed by the respondents had observed that even after filing Contempt Petitions, the petitioner's woes have not come to an end and he is still waiting for his reinstatement and for other consequential benefits. It is thereafter that by notification dated 15/02/2007, the entire period from 12/04/2000 to 30/06/2002 came to be regularized by granting extraordinary leave and the period from 01/07/2002 to 25/09/2006 was treated as on duty. It is during the pendency of the present Petition when the issue of granting deemed date to the petitioner for promotion as ADGP arose then the respondents No.1 to 3 by the impugned order dated 29/10/2016 revoked the order dated 15/02/2007, almost after 9 years. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of L.Chandrakumar Versus Union of India reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 urged that the order dated 29/10/2016 is required to be challenged before the Tribunal in the first instance. In view of the fact that the petitioner is litigating right from 2003 and had to take recourse to so many proceedings to ventilate his grievance which was the outcome of his resignation since set aside by the Tribunal as far back as 2005, that we have examined the legality of the order dated 29/10/2016 in this Petition. We are of the opinion that once the order of the Tribunal confirmed by the High Court is complied with and that to pursuant to filing of Contempt Petition, after acting upon the order, revoking the order unilaterally after 9 years is absolutely unjust and unfair to the petitioner. The high handed manner in which the order dated 15/02/2007 passed by the respondents No.1 to 3 themselves is sought to be revoked leads us to infer that the respondents are determined to rake up and reopen concluded issues only to somehow deprive the petitioner the benefits of the Tribunal's order dated 01/03/2005. The Petition has since been amended. It is in this light of the matter that we are not inclined to accept this objection of the learned Counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 of relegating the petitioner to the Tribunal challenging the order dated 29/10/2016.