Facts
The applicant was appointed as a Constable (Executive) in the Delhi Police in 1996 and later selected as a Head Constable (Ministerial) in 2001
Source reference: p. 2In 2012, he was selected for the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive), but his appointment was kept in abeyance due to the registration of FIR No. 73/2013
Source reference: p. 2, para 2He was subsequently exonerated in departmental proceedings on 21.08.2015
Source reference: p. 3, para 2.1and acquitted in the criminal case on 28.05.2019
Source reference: p. 3, para 2.2Following his acquittal, the respondents restored his seniority and appointed him as Sub-Inspector (Executive) on 09.01.2020
Source reference: p. 4, para 2.3Although his inter-se seniority was restored to the 2012 batch via an order dated 13.02.2025, the applicant alleged that consequential benefits regarding pay fixation, arrears, and MACP were not granted
Source reference: p. 2, para 1; p. 4, para 2.4The applicant submitted a representation (Annexure A-10), which remained pending before the authorities
Source reference: p. 4, para 2.6Issues
1. Whether the respondents are liable to grant the applicant consequential benefits, including notional pay fixation and arrears, at par with his 2012 batchmates following the restoration of his seniority
Source reference: p. 2, para 12. Whether the Tribunal should direct the respondents to decide the applicant’s pending representation regarding pay fixation in a time-bound manner
Source reference: p. 4, para 3Law Applied
The court examined the matter under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs the adjudication of grievances regarding service matters
Source reference: p. 2, para 1It noted the application of Rule 15 (iii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980, under which the applicant was granted notional promotion
Source reference: p. 3, para 2.3The Tribunal also acknowledged the relevance of judicial precedents including Veera Ram v. UOI & Anr. and Sandeep Kumar & Ors. v. GNCTD & Ors. regarding the grant of consequential benefits following acquittal and exoneration
Source reference: p. 4, para 2.5Reasoning
The Tribunal restricted its analysis to the procedural delay in the disposal of the applicant's administrative grievances.
Source reference: p. 4, para 2.4It observed that the applicant’s claim for pay fixation and arrears arose directly from the restoration of his seniority to the year 2012, a fact acknowledged by the respondents in their orders dated 13.02.2025 and 07.03.2025
Source reference: p. 4, para 2.4The Bench noted that the applicant's representation had already been forwarded by the ACP Headquarter, Outer North District, to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (HQ-IV) on 07.03.2025, yet no final decision had been communicated
Source reference: p. 5, para 3Consequently, the Tribunal determined that a directed administrative review was the appropriate initial remedy without delving into the substantive merits of the pay fixation claim at this stage
Source reference: p. 5, para 4-5Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the Original Application at the admission stage without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case
It directed Respondent Nos. 2 (Commissioner of Police) and 3 (DCP HQ-IV) to consider and decide the applicant’s representation (Annexure A-10) by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the law
Source reference: p. 5, para 4The court mandated that this decision be made as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the receipt of the order
Source reference: p. 5, para 4The applicant was granted liberty to further agitate the matter if still aggrieved by the respondents' subsequent decision
Source reference: p. 5, para 5Original Court PDF
Ajit SinghvsHOME AFFAIRS
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in