Sudhir Agarwal - (1.) -Sri H. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner does not propose to file rejoinder-affidavit. Both the learned counsel for the parties agree for final disposal of the matter, therefore, this Court has proceeded to hear and decide this matter finally under the Rules of the Court.
(2.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by Sri Kedar Nath Singh, Inspector, working in U. P. Police Force against the orders dated 26.4.1997, passed by Dy Inspector of Police, Agra Range, Agra (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) withholding crossing of efficiency bar in the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-60-Eb 75-3,200, at the stage of Rs. 2,300 with effect from 1.1.1992 and onwards and dated 1.2.2000 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition ) passed by Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur, rejecting his appeal. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of the writ petition are that the petitioner was working as Inspector in U. P. Police Force and was posted in P.A.C. in the year 1991-92. Efficiency bar in the pay scale at the stage of Rs. 2,300 fell due on 1.1.1992, but after issuing a show cause notice dated 30.6.1992 to the petitioner, the same was withheld vide order dated 28.3.1993 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, P.A.C. (Eastern Sector), Varansi on the ground that an adverse entry was awarded to the petitioner in the year 1991. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order but the same was rejected by the Inspector General of Police, P.A.C., Eastern Zone, Lucknow on 16.1.1996. In the meantime another adverse entry was awarded in the year 1994 but no order for withholding of Efficiency Bar on and after 1.1.1993 was passed. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted in Civil Police at Agra, where Deputy Inspector General of Police, Agra Range, Agra allowed him crossing of efficiency bar at the stage of Rs. 2,300 vide order dated 26.4.1997 with effect from 1.1.1997. The petitioner claiming crossing of efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.1.1992 filed an appeal against the aforesaid order before Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur, but vide order dated 1.2.2000, he has rejected the same upholding order dated 26.4.1997 of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Agra, on the ground that petitioner's service was transferable and transmission of service book took some time, therefore, the delay in crossing of efficiency bar is not unjustified and he was rightly allowed it to be crossed w.e.f. 1.1.1997. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the orders dated 26.4.1997 and 1.2.2000, whereby he has been allowed efficiency bar at the stage of Rs. 2,300 w.e.f. 1.1.1997. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay in any case was not permissible under law and therefore, the respondents are not justified in allowing the crossing of efficiency bar only w.e.f. 1.1.1997. He stressed that he is entitled to cross efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.1.1992.
(3.) RESPONDENTS have filed counter-affidavit stating that crossing of efficiency bar is a discretion of the respondent-authorities and an employee is not entitled, as a matter of right to claim crossing of efficiency bar on due date, i.e., 1.1.1992 or thereafter, as in the case in hand. It is also stated that the petitioner was awarded censure entry in the year 1994, therefore, the respondent-authorities in exercise of its discretionary power could have withheld crossing of efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.1.1992 and thereafter and it cannot be said to be illegal, since it is within the jurisdiction of the respondent-authorities. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;