CONSTABLE 181 AP ASHOK KUMAR AND 22 OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS
LAWS(UTN)-2012-4-106
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on April 17,2012

Constable 181 Ap Ashok Kumar And 22 Others Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) HEARD Mr. Parikshit Saini, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. C. Bisht, the learned brief holder for the respondents. An advertisement was published by the Director General of Police, Uttarakhand for the recruitment of Constables in the police department. The petitioners applied and were selected in the recruitment process. The petitioners were issued an appointment letter on 14th December, 2007 and were sent for training from 01st January, 2008. The training period is confined to nine months and is also stipulated through various orders that during the training period, the newly appointed recruits would be paid a stipend. The petitioners completed their training on 30th September, 2008 and, as per their appointment letter, were posted at different places and started discharging their regular duties on the post of Constables as specified in paragraph 9 of the writ petition.
(2.) IT transpires that a Police Establishment Committee under the Chairmanship of the Director General of Police took a decision on 24th July, 2008 holding that the newly appointed recruits would be given a stipend upto 31st March, 2009. Based on the said decision of the Committee, the impugned order dated 02.08.2008 was passed by the Director General of Police directing payment of stipend to the recruits till 31st March, 2009.
(3.) THE petitioners, being aggrieved by the impugned order, has filed the present writ petition. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit. Paragraph 9 of the writ petition, namely, that upon completion of training on 30.09.2008 the petitioners joined their respective places of posting and are discharging their regular duties, has not been denied by the respondents in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit. The respondents, however, contend that the Police Establishment Committee constituted under Section 38 of the Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has determined the selection / promotion process indicating that the stipend would be paid upto 31st March, 2009 and consequently, based on the said decision, the impugned order was issued, which does not suffer from any error of law. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, the court fails to fathom the mindset of the respondents as disclosed in their counter affidavit. The counter affidavit does not reveal that the period of training was extended beyond nine months. The information given to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) clearly indicates that the period of training in the recruitment process was for 9 months. Reliance on the provisions of Section 38 of the Act by the respondents is also patently erroneous. For facility, Section 38 of the Act is extracted hereunder: - 38. Police Establishment Committee: - (1) The State Government shall, as soon as may be, constitute a Police Establishment Committee (hereinafter referred to as the 'Committee') with the Director General of Police as its Chairperson and two other senior most police officers in the Department, not below the rank of Inspector General of Police, as members. (2) Establishment Committee shall perform the following functions and duties, namely - (a) lay procedures for the selection and promotions in the Subordinate Ranks; (b) transfer of subordinate officers from one Range to another; (c) transfer of officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Assistant Superintendent of Police; (d) recommend to the State Government, regarding the transfer and posting of police officers of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police and above; (e) prescribe guidelines and instructions for transfer of subordinate officers from one Police District to another; and (f) analyse and redress the grievances of the police personnel and wherever necessary, suggest remedial measures to the State Government. (3) The State Government may, in such matters as it may deem fit, for reasons to be recorded in writing, alter or amend the decisions of the Committee. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.