SUJIT BHATTACHARJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question, which falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner, who is found to be in the medical category of SHAPE-2 can be considered for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector by virtue of Clause 17(b) of the SO-1/2003, issued by the Director General, CRPF. Both Mr. C. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Borah, learned Central Government Counsel have been heard extensively. The controversy arose on the following facts and circumstances. The petitioner is serving as Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) Group 'C' staff in the Central Reserve Police Force (for short CRPF), Guwahati. By the office order dated 31.10.2002 of the DIGP, CRPF, his case was to be considered for financial upgradation by the Departmental Screening Committee under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short ACP Scheme). As he was found to be eligible, his upgradation was to take effect w.e.f. 30.03.2003 provided that he was categorized as medical category AYE on the due date. The last categorization of the petitioner was held on 13.11.2002, wherein, he was categorized BEE (temporary for 12 weeks). On 19.06.2003, he was assigned for official duty to liaise with the Senior Auditor in the office of the Auditor General Beltola, Guwahati in connection with settlement of audit paras of the Group Centre, CRPF. Unfortunately, he met with an accident on the way while riding on a scooter and sustained fracture injuries on his person. While he was being referred from the Base Hospital-III, Group Centre, CRPF, Amerigog to Guwahati Medical College Hospital his signature was obtained on a leave application showing that he was applying for leave for 1 day as on 19.06.2003. He resumed his duty on 23rd October, 2003 after he was certified to be fit. It would appear that during the Annual Medical Examination for the years 2003-2004, he was categorized SHAPE-I (S1 H1 A3 P1 E1) (T-24) and SHAPE-II (S1 H1 A2 P1 E1) respectively. He was, accordingly, not considered for promotion from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) to Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) by the DPC for the year 2004 citing "lower medical category". He promptly submitted his representation to the Addl. DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati on the basis of the SO-1/2003, claiming promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector with consequential benefits or at least financial benefits under the ACP Scheme.

(2.) It may, at this stage, be noted that the DIGP, CRPF, Guwahati on 14.11.2005, had recommended to the IGP, NE Sector, Shillong that the petitioner was eligible for benefits under paragraph 17(b) of SO 1/03. This prompted the Directorate General of CRPF to raise the query as to how the petitioner was on government duty when he had taken casual leave on 19.6.2003 vide his letter dated 11.3.2006. The clarification to that effect given by the petitioner did not improve his case since the Director General, CRPF took the view that the petitioner was on casual leave on 19.06.2013 and was not, thereafter, on active duty on that day and that the provision of Para-17(b) of SO-1/2003 was admissible only to officer and men injured due to accident while on active government duty. Thereafter, several correspondences were exchanged between the petitioner and the officials, which did not result in redressing his grievance, whereupon this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he had already completed more than the statutory period of 12 years in 2003 itself and, as such, he has been illegally denied of financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression with effect from 30.3.2003 and to the next higher rank of Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) from the date when his colleagues and juniors were promoted. In this process, his juniors have also stolen a march over him. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent authorities, who have filed their affidavit-in-opposition. The stands taken by the respondents is that the financial benefits of the ACP Scheme, which was due to the petitioner from 30.03.2003, could not be made available to him, inasmuch as he could not make the medical grade of AYE or SHAPE-1. It is also the case of the respondent authorities that on 19.06.2003, the petitioner have taken a casual leave for 1 day due to domestic problem, but was, nevertheless, asked to visit the office of the Accountant General, Assam on his way to home in connection with settlement of pending audit paras of the Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati since he had a good rapport with the staff of the office of the Accountant General. It was on that day that the accident in question, took place. It is the specific case of the respondent that as a casual leave is not a recognized leave, he could not be treated was on duty on that day. It is also contended by the respondent that as he was not on duty on that day, the relaxation provision available under Clause 17(b) of the SO-1/2003 cannot be invoked by him and the benefit of ACP Scheme was correctly denied to the petitioner.