Hon’ble Delhi High Court while dealing with a petition here on 15-02-2019 in the case of “Pawan Kumar Sharma v. Union of India” stated that the case of promotion to the post may not be treated at par with case of direct recruitment.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The Petitioner was appointed as Naik (CM) in the ITBP with effect from 7th December, 1987. In February, 1989 the Petitioner applied for selection to the post of Head Constable (CM) by way of direct recruitment and qualified in the said selection. On 7th December, 1999 the Petitioner completed 12 years of service. He was entitled to the benefit of the 1st financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme. The Petitioner was further promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector (SI) (CM) on 20th February, 2002.

According to the Petitioner the Respondents issued an order dated 17th May, 2005 arbitrarily showing the date of appointment of the Petitioner as 5th July, 1989 i.e. the date he was directly recruited as HC. The date of sanctioning of the ACP benefit was altered as 5th July, 2001.

The Petitioner after getting aggrieved by the refusal of the Respondents to grant him the benefit of the ACP Scheme challenges the order dated 25th November, 2016 issued by the Directorate of the ITBP.

DECISION OF THE COURT

Hon’ble Court held that the case of promotion to the post of HC may not be treated at par with case of direct recruitment as HC.

Court further held that not counting of past service for benefits under the ACP, would be a disincentive for persons like the Petitioner who have shown enterprise and are able to progress faster in the hierarchy purely on their individual merit.

Thus, the impugned gets set aside and this petition was allowed.

Read the full Judgement Here

[embeddoc url=”http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/SMD/judgement/15-02-2019/SMD15022019CW38592017.pdf” download=”all”]