Pratima Behra vs Union Of India And Ors

$~81
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision:30 September, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010474162026
+ W.P.(C) 14595/2026
1. PRATIMA BEHERA
W/O SHRI MADHAB CHANDRA
R/O VPO. JORAKANI,
PS. DELANG
DISTT. PURI,
ODISHA-752015.
...PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra, Mr.
Arjun Panwar and Ms.
Muskaan Dutta, Advs.
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NORTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI-I 10001
. …RESPONDENT NO.1
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
BLOCK NO. O1, CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI-110003
. …RESPONDENT NO.2
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (PERS)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:43:38
W.P.(C)14595/2026 Page 1 of 14

CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
BLOCK NO.O1, CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI -110003.
. …RESPONDENT NO.3
Through: Mr. Shubham Goyal,
Government Pleader
Ms. Ekta Choudhary, Ms.
Rushali Sikand, Advs.
Mr. Vinod Sawant (Law
Officer), Mr. Ajay Pal (Law
Officer), CRPF
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY SHARMA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. The petitioner is seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorari for
th
quashing the communication dated 15 September, 2025 and is
further seeking fixation of seniority in the rank of Head Constable
th
w.e.f. 09 September, 1998.
3. The petitioner has sought a further direction that the case of the
petitioner be considered for grant of out of turn promotion to the post
th
of Head Constable w.e.f. 09 September, 1998 pursuant to her
rd
achievement viz . securing a gold medal in the 53 National Aquatic
Championship, based on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court
th
dated 20 April 2015, delivered in W.P.(C) No.7043/2012 titled as
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:43:38
W.P.(C)14595/2026 Page 2 of 14

“Pradeep Singh and Anr. Vs. Union of India &Ors.”
4. The petitioner has also sought the benefit of the policy dated
th th
14 July, 1998 and the Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 26 July,
2012, in the matter of fixation of seniority in the said rank.
5. The facts which are necessary for deciding the present writ
petition are as under:-
th
i. On 25 July, 1994, the petitioner joined as a Constable/GD
( Mahila ) with the respondent-CRPF.
ii. Being a sportsperson and having an interest in aquatic sports,
she became part of the water polo team.
rd
iii. It is the case of the petitioner that she participated in the 53
National Aquatic Championship, played at Bengaluru, wherein
she secured a gold medal in the team event.
iv. Such achievement, according to her, based on the policy dated
th th
14 July, 1998 and the subsequent policy of 26 July, 2012,
entitles to an out of turn promotion.
v. The existence of said policy perhaps prompted the petitioner to
prefer a representations seeking promotion.
vi. The ssubsequent representations on the same lines, which are at
AnnexureP-4 to Annexure P-13, are sought to be relied upon by
the petitioner to establish that such benefits were claimed by her
in a timely manner.
th
vii. Vide the impugned communication dated i.e., 15 September,
2025, which was in response to a legal notice issued by the
th
counsel for the petitioner, it was informed that the policy of 14
July, 1998 has been discontinued since more than 20 years and
th
that the subsequent policy of dated 26 July, 2012 is not
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:43:38
W.P.(C)14595/2026 Page 3 of 14

applicable to the case of the petitioner.
viii. The petitioner was otherwise granted routine promotions in the
normal hierarchy and is presently occupying the post of
Assistant Sub-Inspector (‘ ASI’ ).
ix. In the interregnum, i.e., after she was awarded a gold medal for
participation, the petitioner was given an award, but not an out
of turn promotion.
6. In the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the petitioner,
th
while questioning the impugned communication dated 15 September,
2025, would urge that the petitioner has repeatedly made
representations since 1998 and, as such, has taken timely steps in the
matter seeking to establish her claim for such out of turn promotion
th
based on the policy that was in existence on 14 July, 1998 and the
th
subsequent policy under O.M. dated 26 July, 2012.
7. It is urged that since nothing was heard from the respondents
qua the representations and the claim put-forth by the petitioner, the
petitioner awaited the decision of the respondents and was ultimately
prompted to approach a lawyer seeking legal advice, which led to the
th
issuance of a legal notice dated 15 April, 2025.
8. It is urged that it was only after the receipt of legal notice that
the respondents communicated their stand/decision vide the impugned
th
communication dated 15 September, 2025.
9. In such an eventuality, this Court must consider and impress
upon the fact that the petitioner had approached the respondents in a
timely manner for the redressal of her claim for out of turn promotion
based on the then-existing policy.
10. It is further urged that the respondents are taking undue
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:43:38
W.P.(C)14595/2026 Page 4 of 14

advantage of their own wrong or failure in communicating a decision
on the various representations preferred by the petitioner, and are now
alleging that the present petition is barred by limitation.
11. As such, it is urged that the petition cannot be thrown out on the
ground of limitation.
12. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
there is a violation of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of
India, as according to her, the right to promotion is a Fundamental
Right.
13. It is submitted that the respondents have granted promotion to
other similarly placed employees who were members of the team
along with the petitioner and were awarded similar medals.
14. This differentia cannot form an intelligible basis for not
granting timely benefits to the petitioner, thereby acting contrary to
the mandate of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India
merely because there is no material to demonstrate that the petitioner
had not actively participated in the matches.
15. It is urged that once the petitioner was a member of the team
and was awarded a medal and a certificate of participation, no further
qualification was contemplated under the policy of 1998 or that of
2012 referred supra.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that though
routine promotions have been granted to the petitioner based on her
seniority and conduct or service record, it is necessary that based on
the rights created under the policy of 1998 and the subsequent policy
of 2012, the petitioner is entitled for the appropriate seniority in the
rank and for the fixation of proper pay.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:43:38
W.P.(C)14595/2026 Page 5 of 14

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
judgment in W.P.(C) No.7043/2012 titled as “Pradeep Singh and Anr.
th
Vs. Union of India through its Secretary and Ors.” decided on 20
April, 2015, squarely covers the case of the petitioner as other
similarly placed employee/officials were granted the benefit of the
policy. As such, it is urged that the impugned decision is liable to be
quashed and set aside in terms of prayer clause (i) and (ii).
18. As against above, learned counsel for the respondent has raised
a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petition. It
is urged that the present petition is hopelessly time-barred, as the
petitioner is trying to upset the seniority which has achieved finality
almost more than two decades back.
19. It is further urged that seniority which has already been settled
and has attained finality cannot be disturbed at this belated stage, in
view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter “ K.R.
Mudgal & Ors. Vs. R.P Singh & Ors.” 1986 4 SCC 531, particularly
Paragraphs No. 2 and 7 thereof.
20. Learned counsel would urge that if the claim of the petitioner is
appreciated, it is evident that way back in 1998, the petitioner claimed
to have participated in the sports event and, subsequent thereto,
continued to make representations.
21. The number of representations or the repeated representations
of the petitioner would not bring the claim of the petitioner within the
limitation as it was for the petitioner to initiate the proceedings within
a reasonable period.
22. It is further urged that the judgment relied on by the petitioner
in the matter of Pradeep Singh (supra), will hardly have any
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:43:38
W.P.(C)14595/2026 Page 6 of 14

applicability to the factual matrix of the present case as at no point of
time did the respondents ever recommended or assured the petitioner
that her case for promotion is made out and will be accordingly
processed.
23. Learned counsel for the respondent would further urge that the
present writ petition in the aforesaid background would be liable to be
dismissed.
24. Having considered the rival claims, it is a fact borne out of the
th
record that the policy through O.M. dated 26 July, 2012 provides for
out of turn promotion only three times in the service period for the
benefit and encouragement of the sports person who have not only
participated in the national or international sports events, but have
secured the medal.
25. As regards the participation of the petitioner in the tournament
is not a fact in dispute to the extent of being a team member, and also
securing a gold medal.
26. What is claimed by the petitioner is that the petitioner became a
member of the team, participated in the practice sessions, was an
active member of the team when the national sports event was
conducted, based on which the benefits which are conferred on the
other team members ought to be at par conferred on the petitioner.
27. When the scheme, particularly in the light of the O.M. dated
th
26 July, 2012, is appreciated, the relevant clause governing team
events reads thus:-
iii. In case of a team event, a sportsperson will qualify for out of
turn promotion only if he has played at least 50% of the
matches in the same event. Reserve player, if any, shall not be
entitled for any out of tum promotion.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:43:38
W.P.(C)14595/2026 Page 7 of 14

28. A plain reading of the aforesaid clause makes it clear that
merely being part of a team in a sports event will not, by itself, entitle
an employee like the petitioner to the conferment of the service
benefits, under the policy as the qualification prescribed and referred
to above mandates that the candidate must participate in at least 50%
of the sports/event has to be satisfied.
29. Merely being a member of such a national team or the
conferment of a gold medal as a team member does not by itself lead
to the conclusion that the candidates are entitled to the service benefits
such as out of turn promotion, unless it is demonstrated that such
candidates have actively participated in more than 50% of the events.
30. For such purpose, in our opinion, the initial burden is on the
petitioner to discharge the same thereby establishing that the
petitioner has actively participated in such sports event of national or
international level.
31. In the various representations preferred by the petitioner,
th
particularly the representation dated 27 August, 2002, the petitioner
herself has claimed that seven members of her team were granted
promotion as well as awards, whereas the remaining six members of
the team were granted only awards.
32. The relevant part of the said representation to the aforesaid
effect reads thus:-
“The applicant participated as a member of the team in the
National Water Polo Championship held at Bangalore in
September 1998, in which the team secured First Position. In
this regard, seven members of the team were granted promotion
as well as awards, whereas the remaining six female members
of the team were granted only awards.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:43:38
W.P.(C)14595/2026 Page 8 of 14

33. The petitioner no doubt has claimed promotion through the said
representation, but the denial of promotion to her when other similarly
placed candidates were granted promotion was not questioned by her
either by approaching this Court or through any other mode, save and
except for making repeated representations over two decades.
34. Subsequent representations of the petitioner reiterate the
aforesaid factual position, and even in other representations also, the
petitioner is unable to demonstrate that she has actively participated in
the event. Rather, in the representations, she has stated that ever since
the date of the event and after she was given the award, an entry to
that effect was also not made in her service record. In fact the
petitioner who was having knowledge of the denial of service benefits
has chosen not to question the same before the competent court within
the reasonable time.
35. The aforesaid conduct on the part of the petitioner has rightly
led to drawing an inference by the respondents that the petitioner in
fact has never actively participated in the team event in more than
50% of the matches.
rd
36. It is rather, as per the representation dated 03 September,
2021, she herself has admitted that she participated in the practice
sessions in the capacity of a goal-keeper.
37. As such, there is no material to infer that there is any violation
of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
38. The non-grant or non-passing of the service benefits to the
petitioner is based on an intelligible differentia, as the petitioner was
only a member of the team who never actively participated in more
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:43:38
W.P.(C)14595/2026 Page 9 of 14

than 50% of the team events.
39. In such an eventuality, the case of the petitioner that there is a
violation of the fundamental rights cannot be accepted.
40. Similarly, in the matter of Pradeep Singh (supra), in para 18,
while dealing with the claim, this Court took note of the fact that the
rd
Court was informed on 03 September, 2014 that the respondents had
taken steps for promoting the petitioners, which are not the facts in the
case in hand. In the said matter the principles of estoppel were
involved, and on administrative side also there was delay in
prosecuting the case in spite of assurance was made.
41. The respondents, rather, are resisting the claim of the petitioner
for grant of promotion from its inception based on the cause that
petitioner has not qualified the terms of the O.M. of 2012.
42. Paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of the above said judgment reads
thus:-
“18. In view of the facts noted hereinabove, the only issue left to
be considered by us is : whether the respondents can be allowed
to take the benefit of their own wrong, i.e. for the reason that it
was the respondents themselves who had unduly delayed the
processing of the case of the petitioners, citing administrative
reasons. More so, when they themselves
had informed this Court on September 3, 2014 that they had
taken steps for promoting the petitioners to the rank of Head
Constable under the Sports Quota.
19. Admittedly the petitioners had secured a Bronze Medal each
in National Games in March 2004 and were eligible for out of
tum promotion pursuant to the policy dated July 14, 1998. The
respondents in their Counter Affidavit have specifically
admitted that the case of the petitioners, though belatedly, had
been approved by the Director General vide order dated May
10, 2005 for Out of Tum promotion to the rank of Head
Constable. Had the respondents processed the case of the
petitioners in time, the petitioners would have been promoted to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:43:38
W.P.(C)14595/2026 Page 10 of 14

the rank of Head Constable in time and the policy decision
dated December 22, 2004 would not have come in the way for
granting promotion to the petitioners. Even otherwise the said
stand of the respondents cannot be accepted for the reason that
in the counter affidavit filed by them they themselves have
admitted that in the year 2005 and 2006, Out of Tum
promotions were given to persons who had
participated in National Championships in the Month of
September/November 2004 and thus, the respondents cannot
predicate the rejection of the candidature of the petitioners for
Out of Tum promotions on the reasoning that since the issuance
of the new policy dated December 22, 2004, no Out of Tum
promotions were effected.
20. Even otherwise the said stand of the respondents cannot be
accepted for the reason that the original policy dated July 14,
1998 itself clarified that the promotion was to be given with
effect from the date of conclusion of the competition. Thus, it is
immaterial as to on which date the approval for promotion was
forwarded to the competent authority as the said benefit
necessarily was to be given effect to from the date of conclusion
of the
competition which in the instant case would be March 2004 and
the decision taking away Out of Tum promotion in any event
was only issued subsequently on December 22, 2004 and thus,
could have taken away the right of the petitioners, which
admittedly accrued in March 2004.”
43. A plain reading of the observations therein hardly supports the
case of the petitioner.
44. Apart from above, the claim of seniority which has attained
finality long ago is sought to be reopened by the petitioner after the
lapse of more than 20 years.
45. In the matter of K.R. Mudgal & Ors. Vs. R.P Singh & Ors.”
1986 4 SCC 531, the Apex Court has already held that post expiry of
three to four years of finalization of seniority, same cannot be
reopened. Paragraphs 2 and 7 of the said judgement are worth
referring which are produced as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:43:38
W.P.(C)14595/2026 Page 11 of 14

2. At the outset it should be stated that it is distressing to see
that cases of this kind where the validity of the appointments of
the officials who had been appointed more than 32 years age is
questioned are still being agitated in courts of law. A
Government servant who is appointed to any post ordinarily
should at least after a period of 3 or 4 years of his appointment
be allowed to attend to the duties attached to his post peacefully
and without any sense of insecurity. It is unfortunate that in this
case the officials who are appellants before this Court have
been put to the necessity of defending their appointments as
well as their seniority after nearly three decades. This kind of
fruitless and harmful litigation should be discouraged.
7.The respondents in the writ petition raised a preliminary
objection to the writ petition stating that the writ petition was
liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. Although the
learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have not disposed
of the above writ petition on the ground of delay, we feel that in
the circumstances of this case the writ petition should have been
rejected on the ground of delay alone. The first draft seniority
list of the Assistants was issued in the year 1958 and it was duly
circulated amongst all the concerned officials. In that list the
writ petitioners had been shown below the respondents. No
objections were received from the petitioners against the
seniority list. Subsequently, the seniority lists were again issued
in 1961 and 1965 but again no objections were raised by the
writ petitioners, to the seniority list of 1961, but only the
petitioner No. 6 in the writ petition represented against the
seniority list of 1965. We have already mentioned that the 1968
seniority list in which the writ petitioners had been shown
above the respondents had been issued on a misunderstanding
of the Office Memorandum of 1959 on the assumption that the
1949 Office Memorandum was not applicable to them. The June
1975 seniority list was prepared having regard to the decision
in Ravi Varma's case (supra) and the decision of the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh in the writ petitions filed by respondent Nos.
7 and 36 and thus the mistake that had crept into the 1968 list
was rectified. Thus the list was finalised in January, 1976. The
petitioners who filed the writ petition should have in the
ordinary course questioned the principle on the basis of which
the seniority lists were being issued from time to time from the
year 1958 and the promotions which were being made on the
basis of the said lists within a reasonable time. For the first time
they filed the writ petition in the High Court in the year 1976
nearly 18 years after the first draft seniority list was published
in the year 1958. Satisfactory service conditions postulate that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:43:38
W.P.(C)14595/2026 Page 12 of 14

there should be no sense of uncertainty amongst the
Government servants created by the writ petitions filed after
several years as in this case. It is essential that any one who
feels aggrieved by the seniority assigned to him should
approach the court as early as possible as otherwise in addition
to the creation of a sense of insecurity in the minds of the
Government servants there would also be administrative
complications and difficulties. Unfortunately in this case even
after nearly 32 years the dispute regarding the appointment of
some of the respondents to the writ petition is still lingering in
this Court. In these circumstances we consider that the High
Court was wrong in rejecting the preliminary objection raised
on behalf of the respondents to the writ petition on the ground
of laches. The facts of this case are more or less similar to the
facts in R.S. Makashi & Ors.v. I.M. Menon & Ors., [1982] 2
S.C.R. 69. In the said decision this Court observed at page 100
thus:
"In these circumstances, we consider that the High Court was
wrong in over-ruling the preliminary objection raised by the
respondents before it, that the writ petition should be dismissed
on the preliminary ground of delay and laches, inasmuch as it
seeks to disrupt the vested rights regarding the seniority, rank
and promotions which had accrued to a large number of
respondents during the period of eight years that had intervened
between the passing of the impugned Resolution and the
institution of the writ petition. We would accordingly hold that
the challenge raised by the petitioners against the seniority
principles laid down in the Government Resolution of March 22,
ought to have been rejected by the High Court on the ground of
delay and laches and the writ petition in so far as it related to
the prayer for quashing the said Government Resolution should
have been dismissed."
46. In the light of the above position of the claim put forth by the
petitioner qua grant of seniority cannot be said to be gone into at this
stage.
47. In the aforesaid background, we see no reason to consider and
grant the benefit which is claimed by the petitioner, rather rightly so,
the learned counsel for the respondents has impressed upon us to infer
that the writ petition is not only hopelessly time-barred, but even on
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:43:38
W.P.(C)14595/2026 Page 13 of 14

merits, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of promotion which
is claimed by her.
48. In such an eventuality, the present writ petition lacks merits and
stands dismissed.
49. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
(JUDGE)
SANJAY SHARMA
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2026/ sky/st
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:43:38
W.P.(C)14595/2026 Page 14 of 14