Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2221/2012
NAIB SUBEDAR VIJAY BAHADUR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S. M. Dalal, Advocate
versus
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Barkha Babbar, Advocate for
the UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
O R D E R
% 12.09.2014
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated
25.03.2010 and 19.01.2012 passed in T.A. No.279/2010 and R.A.
No.49/2011 respectively, by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the
order dated 30.06.2006 whereby he was discharged from service w.e.f.
30.06.2006. The petitioner also seeks a direction for his promotion to the
next higher rank of Subedar with all consequential benefits and/or in the
alternative to award him a lump sum amount of Rs.8.00 lacs as
W.P. (C) 2221/2012 Page 1 of 11
compensation.
2. The petitioner enrolled in the Indian Army on 06.06.1978 and in
due course of his service, he was promoted to the rank of Havildar on
19.09.1992. The petitioner had passed the promotion cadre examination
in the year 1998 and became eligible for promotion to the next higher
rank of Naib Subedar. The petitioner was graded average in his Annual
Confidential Report (in short ‘ACR’) for the period 2000-2001 and due to
this adverse ACR, he was not promoted to the rank of Naib Subedar
while his juniors got promoted. This adverse ACR was communicated to
the petitioner in June, 2002 and the same was set aside by the Competent
Authority on 24.01.2003. The petitioner was again awarded ‘severe
rd
reprimand’ on 3 January, 2003 and this too was expunged on August 25,
2003.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the illegal action of the respondents in
denying him promotion to the next higher rank of Naib Subedar, the
petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court bearing W.P.(C)
No.8198/2004. Disposing off the said writ petition of the petitioner, the
Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.05.2006 passed the
following order:
Learned counsel for the respondents during the course
W.P. (C) 2221/2012 Page 2 of 11
of hearing has stated that the respondents would
consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from
Hawaldar to the rank of Naib Subedar in accordance
th
with rules by 15 June, 2006. This consideration by
the respondents is primarily for the reason that though
the petitioner had become over age in June, 2002 but
because of the red entry existed in his ACR which was
subsequently corrected in the year 2002, the deponent
would not wish to cause prejudice to the petitioner and
would consider his case for promotion and other
consequential reliefs which he may be entitled to by
th
15 June, 2006.
In view of the statement made on behalf of the
respondents, the petitioner does not press this
petition. This petition is accordingly disposed of as not
pressed. The respondents would abide by their
statement. It is not in dispute before us that the red
entry in the ACR of the petitioner has been corrected
and the remark of 'severe reprimand' has already been
deleted from the service record of the petitioner. The
th
order may be communicated to the petitioner by 15
June, 2006. Till that date, the services of the
petitioner will not be dispensed with.”
4. In compliance of the said order passed by this Court, the petitioner
got promoted to the next higher rank of Naib Subedar w.e.f. 14.06.2006
with ante date seniority from 01.06.2002 alongwith necessary pay and
allowances. As per the petitioner, after he was granted the said
W.P. (C) 2221/2012 Page 3 of 11
promotion, he also became eligible for promotion to the rank of Subedar
w.e.f. 01.06.2006 when such a vacancy arose. It is also the grievance of
the petitioner that on promotion to the rank of Subedar, he would have
remained in service till 30.06.2008 and in the meanwhile, he would have
become eligible for promotion to the rank of Subedar Major which would
have given him the benefit of a further four years in service but instead,
the respondents illegally discharged the petitioner from service w.e.f.
30.06.2006 by Order No.1177/A dated 30.06.2006.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the respondents, the petitioner
had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.567/2007 and the same was
transferred to the learned Armed Forces Tribunal after ‘The Armed
Forces Tribunal Act, 2007’ came into force. Vide order dated 25.03.2010,
the learned Armed Forces Tribunal dismissed the said transferred writ
petition filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner
filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C).5156/2010 but the
same was withdrawn by the petitioner with a liberty to seek a review
before the learned Armed Forces Tribunal. The said writ petition was
accordingly dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.07.2011 by a
Division Bench of this Court. The petitioner, thereafter, filed R.A.
W.P. (C) 2221/2012 Page 4 of 11
No.49/2011 before the learned Armed Forces Tribunal and the same vide
order dated 19.01.2012 was dismissed, which led to the filing of the
present writ petition.
6. Representing the case of the petitioner, Mr. S. M. Dalal, the
learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that it was not
on account of any fault or lapse on the part of the petitioner that he could
not fulfil the eligibility criteria of earning the requisite ACRs in the rank
of Naib Subedar and also passing the Junior Leader Proficiency Test (in
short JLPT). The contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that once the average grading in the ACR of the petitioner for
the year 2000-2001 and the ‘severe reprimand’ awarded to him in
January, 2003 were set aside and he was promoted to the higher rank of
Naib Subedar, then his name should have come up for promotion to the
higher rank of Subedar from the date when a vacancy to the said rank had
arisen. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner was granted promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar on
14.06.2006 pursuant to directions given by this Court vide order dated
29.05.2006 disposing off the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.8198/2001
preferred by the petitioner.
W.P. (C) 2221/2012 Page 5 of 11
7. The said writ petition was disposed off by this Court taking into
consideration the submissions made by the respondents that they would
consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the rank of
Havildar to the rank of Naib Subedar and grant of other consequential
benefits which he may be entitled to in accordance with the rules by
15.06.2006. Although, the petitioner got promoted to the rank of Naib
Subedar on 14.06.2006 with ante date seniority from 01.06.2002 with the
grant of applicable pay and allowances but he also got superannuated on
30.06.2006 on the said rank of Naib Subedar. The petitioner was still not
satisfied with the grant of promotion to the next higher rank of Naib
Subedar and thus, filed a fresh writ petition being W.P.(C) No.567/2007
seeking a direction for his promotion to the rank of Subedar w.e.f.
01.06.2006 with all consequential benefits and with a further direction to
take him back in service to serve a further period of six years. The
grievance raised by the petitioner was that the petitioner became eligible
for promotion to the rank of Subedar w.e.f. 01.06.2006 when vacancy for
this post arose and he was deprived of the said promotion for no fault of
his and this was done only because of his illegally downgraded ACR for
the year 2000-2001; that otherwise he would have been promoted to the
W.P. (C) 2221/2012 Page 6 of 11
rank of Naib Subedar along with his batchmates itself in June, 2002. The
petitioner in the said writ petition had also claimed that on promotion to
th
the rank of Subedar, he would have been entitled to serve till 30 June,
2008 and on the said rank he would have become due for empanelment to
the rank of Subedar Major, which would have given him a further period
of four years in service thereby, enabling him to serve till the year 2012.
The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that had the
petitioner been promoted timely to the rank of Naib Subedar then he
would have earned at least two ACRs on the said rank and would have
also qualified the JLPT course to fulfil the eligibility requirements for
promotion to the next rank of Subedar. The contention raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner was that, the fault squarely lies with the
respondents in denying promotion to the petitioner to the rank of Naib
Subedar because of the said illegal down grading of his ACRs for the
year 2000-2001 which was later set aside. In support of his arguments,
the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance upon a
judgment of this Court in the case of Havildar Tilak Raj Singh v. Union
of India & Ors . (W.P.(C) No.22970/2005 decided on 21.08.2008),
wherein this Court in similar circumstances not only ordered promotion
W.P. (C) 2221/2012 Page 7 of 11
to the next rank but was also pleased to award a sum of Rs.1.00 Lac as
compensation in favour of the petitioner therein for denial of further
opportunities for promotion and extended the term of service for a period
of two years.
8. The present petition has been strongly opposed by Ms. Barkha
Babbar, the learned counsel for the respondents who submits that the
petitioner was ineligible for the grant of promotion to the rank of Subedar
as he had not passed the JLPT course and also lacked the requisite ACRs
for promotion to the said rank as per the existing promotion policy; that
the petitioner did not meet the mandatory prerequisite qualitative
requirements for promotion to the rank of Subedar as provided in Para
803 of Record Office Instructions read with Instructions contained in Dte.
General of Military Training Letter dated 14.03.2000; that the present
writ petition filed by the petitioner is not tenable and is highly
misconceived and therefore, the same should be outrightly rejected.
9. For promotion to the rank of Subedar, the eligibility criteria has
been laid down in Para 803 of Record Office Instructions, 2004 which are
reproduced as under:-
“a. Last three reports will be considered out of which at
least two should be in the rank of Nb Sub and one
may be in the rank of Hav, in case of shortfall.
W.P. (C) 2221/2012 Page 8 of 11
b. All these three reports should not be less than “High
Average.”
c. The individual should be recommended for promotion
in all the three reports.
a. Passing of Junior Leader Proficiency Test from NB
Sub to Sub is Mandatory.
(Auth: - Army Headquarters letter No.
A/16820/GS/MT-2 dated 14 Mar 2000)”
10. Undeniably, the petitioner does not fulfil the said mandatory
requirements since he never passed the JLPT course and neither did he
have the requisite two ACRs on the rank of Naib Subedar out of the three
ACRs to be considered for promotion to the rank of Subedar. It is also a
requirement that all these three ACRs should not be less than high
average. The petitioner has built his case on the premise that it was not
his fault for which he was denied timely promotion to the rank of Naib
Subedar and had he been promoted in the year 2002 itself then he would
have certainly had the advantage of fulfilling both the said requirements
of passing the JLPT course and that of possessing the requisite two ACRs
on the said rank. As per the petitioner, the vacancy for the next higher
rank of Subedar had arisen on 01.06.2006 and he should be granted
promotion from the said date since this Court while disposing off his writ
petition being W.P.(C) No.8198/2004 had given a direction for his ante
date promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar with all consequential
W.P. (C) 2221/2012 Page 9 of 11
benefits. This stand taken by the petitioner is presumptuous and is not
based on any legal right. The Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8198/2004 was
disposed off by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2006 and the petitioner
had never claimed that he be further promoted from the rank of Naib
Subedar to Subedar and from Subedar to Subedar Major. The petitioner
perhaps had woken up from his deep slumber after he was superannuated
from service on the rank of Naib Subedar vide order dated 30.06.2006.
11. The learned AFT is correct in taking a view that the petitioner did
not meet the eligibility criteria required for the grant of further promotion
from the rank of Naib Subedar to Subedar and therefore, he was ineligible
for the grant of the said promotion. The learned AFT has also rightly
dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioner seeking
compensation for being promoted late on the ground that no such plea
was ever raised by the petitioner at the time of the final disposal of his
T.A. No.279/2010 and nor was any reliance placed on the judgment of
this Court in the case of Havildar Tilak Raj Singh (supra) at that stage.
12. We find ourselves in agreement with the reasoning given by the
learned AFT in both the orders, which are under challenge and we are
further of the view that it was for the petitioner to have claimed the relief
W.P. (C) 2221/2012 Page 10 of 11
of further promotion in the earlier Writ Petition No.8198/2004. Having
not done so, the petitioner cannot be allowed to rake up any further
controversy at a later stage. In compliance of the order dated 29.05.2006
passed in the aforementioned Writ Petition, the petitioner was promoted
from the rank of Havildar to Naib Subedar vide order dated 14.06.2006
with ante date seniority w.e.f. 01.06.2002 with all consequential benefits.
However, we cannot stretch the expression ‘consequential benefits’ to
mean the grant of all further promotions and consequent extensions in the
service of the petitioner as per the tenure of higher ranks.
There is no merit in the present petition and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
SEPTEMBER 12, 2014
v
W.P. (C) 2221/2012 Page 11 of 11
+ W.P.(C) 2221/2012
NAIB SUBEDAR VIJAY BAHADUR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S. M. Dalal, Advocate
versus
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Barkha Babbar, Advocate for
the UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
O R D E R
% 12.09.2014
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated
25.03.2010 and 19.01.2012 passed in T.A. No.279/2010 and R.A.
No.49/2011 respectively, by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the
order dated 30.06.2006 whereby he was discharged from service w.e.f.
30.06.2006. The petitioner also seeks a direction for his promotion to the
next higher rank of Subedar with all consequential benefits and/or in the
alternative to award him a lump sum amount of Rs.8.00 lacs as
W.P. (C) 2221/2012 Page 1 of 11
compensation.
2. The petitioner enrolled in the Indian Army on 06.06.1978 and in
due course of his service, he was promoted to the rank of Havildar on
19.09.1992. The petitioner had passed the promotion cadre examination
in the year 1998 and became eligible for promotion to the next higher
rank of Naib Subedar. The petitioner was graded average in his Annual
Confidential Report (in short ‘ACR’) for the period 2000-2001 and due to
this adverse ACR, he was not promoted to the rank of Naib Subedar
while his juniors got promoted. This adverse ACR was communicated to
the petitioner in June, 2002 and the same was set aside by the Competent
Authority on 24.01.2003. The petitioner was again awarded ‘severe
rd
reprimand’ on 3 January, 2003 and this too was expunged on August 25,
2003.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the illegal action of the respondents in
denying him promotion to the next higher rank of Naib Subedar, the
petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court bearing W.P.(C)
No.8198/2004. Disposing off the said writ petition of the petitioner, the
Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.05.2006 passed the
following order:
Learned counsel for the respondents during the course
W.P. (C) 2221/2012 Page 2 of 11
of hearing has stated that the respondents would
consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from
Hawaldar to the rank of Naib Subedar in accordance
th
with rules by 15 June, 2006. This consideration by
the respondents is primarily for the reason that though
the petitioner had become over age in June, 2002 but
because of the red entry existed in his ACR which was
subsequently corrected in the year 2002, the deponent
would not wish to cause prejudice to the petitioner and
would consider his case for promotion and other
consequential reliefs which he may be entitled to by
th
15 June, 2006.
In view of the statement made on behalf of the
respondents, the petitioner does not press this
petition. This petition is accordingly disposed of as not
pressed. The respondents would abide by their
statement. It is not in dispute before us that the red
entry in the ACR of the petitioner has been corrected
and the remark of 'severe reprimand' has already been
deleted from the service record of the petitioner. The
th
order may be communicated to the petitioner by 15
June, 2006. Till that date, the services of the
petitioner will not be dispensed with.”
4. In compliance of the said order passed by this Court, the petitioner
got promoted to the next higher rank of Naib Subedar w.e.f. 14.06.2006
with ante date seniority from 01.06.2002 alongwith necessary pay and
allowances. As per the petitioner, after he was granted the said
W.P. (C) 2221/2012 Page 3 of 11
promotion, he also became eligible for promotion to the rank of Subedar
w.e.f. 01.06.2006 when such a vacancy arose. It is also the grievance of
the petitioner that on promotion to the rank of Subedar, he would have
remained in service till 30.06.2008 and in the meanwhile, he would have
become eligible for promotion to the rank of Subedar Major which would
have given him the benefit of a further four years in service but instead,
the respondents illegally discharged the petitioner from service w.e.f.
30.06.2006 by Order No.1177/A dated 30.06.2006.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the respondents, the petitioner
had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.567/2007 and the same was
transferred to the learned Armed Forces Tribunal after ‘The Armed
Forces Tribunal Act, 2007’ came into force. Vide order dated 25.03.2010,
the learned Armed Forces Tribunal dismissed the said transferred writ
petition filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner
filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C).5156/2010 but the
same was withdrawn by the petitioner with a liberty to seek a review
before the learned Armed Forces Tribunal. The said writ petition was
accordingly dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.07.2011 by a
Division Bench of this Court. The petitioner, thereafter, filed R.A.
W.P. (C) 2221/2012 Page 4 of 11
No.49/2011 before the learned Armed Forces Tribunal and the same vide
order dated 19.01.2012 was dismissed, which led to the filing of the
present writ petition.
6. Representing the case of the petitioner, Mr. S. M. Dalal, the
learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that it was not
on account of any fault or lapse on the part of the petitioner that he could
not fulfil the eligibility criteria of earning the requisite ACRs in the rank
of Naib Subedar and also passing the Junior Leader Proficiency Test (in
short JLPT). The contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that once the average grading in the ACR of the petitioner for
the year 2000-2001 and the ‘severe reprimand’ awarded to him in
January, 2003 were set aside and he was promoted to the higher rank of
Naib Subedar, then his name should have come up for promotion to the
higher rank of Subedar from the date when a vacancy to the said rank had
arisen. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner was granted promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar on
14.06.2006 pursuant to directions given by this Court vide order dated
29.05.2006 disposing off the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.8198/2001
preferred by the petitioner.
W.P. (C) 2221/2012 Page 5 of 11
7. The said writ petition was disposed off by this Court taking into
consideration the submissions made by the respondents that they would
consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the rank of
Havildar to the rank of Naib Subedar and grant of other consequential
benefits which he may be entitled to in accordance with the rules by
15.06.2006. Although, the petitioner got promoted to the rank of Naib
Subedar on 14.06.2006 with ante date seniority from 01.06.2002 with the
grant of applicable pay and allowances but he also got superannuated on
30.06.2006 on the said rank of Naib Subedar. The petitioner was still not
satisfied with the grant of promotion to the next higher rank of Naib
Subedar and thus, filed a fresh writ petition being W.P.(C) No.567/2007
seeking a direction for his promotion to the rank of Subedar w.e.f.
01.06.2006 with all consequential benefits and with a further direction to
take him back in service to serve a further period of six years. The
grievance raised by the petitioner was that the petitioner became eligible
for promotion to the rank of Subedar w.e.f. 01.06.2006 when vacancy for
this post arose and he was deprived of the said promotion for no fault of
his and this was done only because of his illegally downgraded ACR for
the year 2000-2001; that otherwise he would have been promoted to the
W.P. (C) 2221/2012 Page 6 of 11
rank of Naib Subedar along with his batchmates itself in June, 2002. The
petitioner in the said writ petition had also claimed that on promotion to
th
the rank of Subedar, he would have been entitled to serve till 30 June,
2008 and on the said rank he would have become due for empanelment to
the rank of Subedar Major, which would have given him a further period
of four years in service thereby, enabling him to serve till the year 2012.
The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that had the
petitioner been promoted timely to the rank of Naib Subedar then he
would have earned at least two ACRs on the said rank and would have
also qualified the JLPT course to fulfil the eligibility requirements for
promotion to the next rank of Subedar. The contention raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner was that, the fault squarely lies with the
respondents in denying promotion to the petitioner to the rank of Naib
Subedar because of the said illegal down grading of his ACRs for the
year 2000-2001 which was later set aside. In support of his arguments,
the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance upon a
judgment of this Court in the case of Havildar Tilak Raj Singh v. Union
of India & Ors . (W.P.(C) No.22970/2005 decided on 21.08.2008),
wherein this Court in similar circumstances not only ordered promotion
W.P. (C) 2221/2012 Page 7 of 11
to the next rank but was also pleased to award a sum of Rs.1.00 Lac as
compensation in favour of the petitioner therein for denial of further
opportunities for promotion and extended the term of service for a period
of two years.
8. The present petition has been strongly opposed by Ms. Barkha
Babbar, the learned counsel for the respondents who submits that the
petitioner was ineligible for the grant of promotion to the rank of Subedar
as he had not passed the JLPT course and also lacked the requisite ACRs
for promotion to the said rank as per the existing promotion policy; that
the petitioner did not meet the mandatory prerequisite qualitative
requirements for promotion to the rank of Subedar as provided in Para
803 of Record Office Instructions read with Instructions contained in Dte.
General of Military Training Letter dated 14.03.2000; that the present
writ petition filed by the petitioner is not tenable and is highly
misconceived and therefore, the same should be outrightly rejected.
9. For promotion to the rank of Subedar, the eligibility criteria has
been laid down in Para 803 of Record Office Instructions, 2004 which are
reproduced as under:-
“a. Last three reports will be considered out of which at
least two should be in the rank of Nb Sub and one
may be in the rank of Hav, in case of shortfall.
W.P. (C) 2221/2012 Page 8 of 11
b. All these three reports should not be less than “High
Average.”
c. The individual should be recommended for promotion
in all the three reports.
a. Passing of Junior Leader Proficiency Test from NB
Sub to Sub is Mandatory.
(Auth: - Army Headquarters letter No.
A/16820/GS/MT-2 dated 14 Mar 2000)”
10. Undeniably, the petitioner does not fulfil the said mandatory
requirements since he never passed the JLPT course and neither did he
have the requisite two ACRs on the rank of Naib Subedar out of the three
ACRs to be considered for promotion to the rank of Subedar. It is also a
requirement that all these three ACRs should not be less than high
average. The petitioner has built his case on the premise that it was not
his fault for which he was denied timely promotion to the rank of Naib
Subedar and had he been promoted in the year 2002 itself then he would
have certainly had the advantage of fulfilling both the said requirements
of passing the JLPT course and that of possessing the requisite two ACRs
on the said rank. As per the petitioner, the vacancy for the next higher
rank of Subedar had arisen on 01.06.2006 and he should be granted
promotion from the said date since this Court while disposing off his writ
petition being W.P.(C) No.8198/2004 had given a direction for his ante
date promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar with all consequential
W.P. (C) 2221/2012 Page 9 of 11
benefits. This stand taken by the petitioner is presumptuous and is not
based on any legal right. The Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8198/2004 was
disposed off by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2006 and the petitioner
had never claimed that he be further promoted from the rank of Naib
Subedar to Subedar and from Subedar to Subedar Major. The petitioner
perhaps had woken up from his deep slumber after he was superannuated
from service on the rank of Naib Subedar vide order dated 30.06.2006.
11. The learned AFT is correct in taking a view that the petitioner did
not meet the eligibility criteria required for the grant of further promotion
from the rank of Naib Subedar to Subedar and therefore, he was ineligible
for the grant of the said promotion. The learned AFT has also rightly
dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioner seeking
compensation for being promoted late on the ground that no such plea
was ever raised by the petitioner at the time of the final disposal of his
T.A. No.279/2010 and nor was any reliance placed on the judgment of
this Court in the case of Havildar Tilak Raj Singh (supra) at that stage.
12. We find ourselves in agreement with the reasoning given by the
learned AFT in both the orders, which are under challenge and we are
further of the view that it was for the petitioner to have claimed the relief
W.P. (C) 2221/2012 Page 10 of 11
of further promotion in the earlier Writ Petition No.8198/2004. Having
not done so, the petitioner cannot be allowed to rake up any further
controversy at a later stage. In compliance of the order dated 29.05.2006
passed in the aforementioned Writ Petition, the petitioner was promoted
from the rank of Havildar to Naib Subedar vide order dated 14.06.2006
with ante date seniority w.e.f. 01.06.2002 with all consequential benefits.
However, we cannot stretch the expression ‘consequential benefits’ to
mean the grant of all further promotions and consequent extensions in the
service of the petitioner as per the tenure of higher ranks.
There is no merit in the present petition and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
SEPTEMBER 12, 2014
v
W.P. (C) 2221/2012 Page 11 of 11