IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 12605 of 2008. Judgment reserved on :07.05.2011. Date of decision: 20.05.2011. _______________________________________________________ Amar Singh. ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P.& Ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No Petitioner : In person. For the Respondents : Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Addl.A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana,Asstt.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge The petitioner has prayed mainly the following reliefs in the petition:- i) To direct the respondents to grant and release the Proficiency Increments of 18 years which was due and admissible to the applicant at the relevant time; ii) The applicant be considered for the promotion of a Sub Inspector of Police without Upper Class Training as the applicant was considered only when two years of superannuation were left; iii) The respondent department be further directed to consider the applicant for the notional promotion as Sub Inspector of Police for all purposes as per the Police Rules and other service rules from due date before superannuation; Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 iv) The arrears of amount on account of Proficiency Increment and promotion be released with interest as per rules. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as constable on 08.03.1956. He was promoted as Head Constable on 14.05.1965. The petitioner was not considered in time for promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector. He was superseded by many juniors, who were promoted as Assistant Sub Inspectors. Such juniors got their intermediate training before the petitioner for no fault of the petitioner. The petitioner made representations which were not considered and the claim of the petitioner was ignored for his service benefits. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that he did his Middle school examination in 1983. The Punjab Police Rules, 1936, which were applicable, provide intermediate training to Head Constables, who thereafter become eligible for further promotion. The petitioner as per his seniority should have been sent for intermediate training in the year 1983 or thereafter when he submitted his Middle pass certificate. The petitioner was sent for intermediate training in 1987. It has been alleged that even 7th Class pass Head Constables completed their training at Police College, Madhuban. On the same analogy, the petitioner should have been sent to Upper Class training before 1990, but he was sent for Upper Class training in the years 1992 and 1993 when petitioner was more than 56 years. The petitioner retired on superannuation on 30.04.1994. 4. It has been alleged that the petitioner was discriminated, as juniors were considered and given benefits. The petitioner should 3 have been given notional promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector of Police with all benefits. The representations submitted by the petitioner were ignored. The petitioner was not granted Proficiency Increment falling due after 18 years of service which caused great financial loss to the petitioner. 5. The respondents have contested the petition by filing reply and have taken the plea of delay, laches, limitation. The petition has been filed after lapse of more than 10 years. The petitioner was selected to undergo the Upper School Course for promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector, but he refused to undergo the said training. 6. The petitioner was enrolled as Constable in the year 1956, he was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1965. The petitioner was deputed for Intermediate School Course in the year 1985 which he qualified in the year 1987. The selection for the Intermediate School Course is made on the basis of merit obtained in the Lower School Course as per Rules. The petitioner has not disclosed the names of the persons, who were junior to him and deputed to Intermediate School Course prior to petitioner. 7. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector in the year 1988. He became eligible to undergo Upper Class Course in July, 1992. He was selected to undergo Upper Class Course in November, 1992, but he refused to undergo said course. He was again selected to undergo Upper Class Course in April, 1993 and January, 1994, but he had not shown his willingness to undergo said training. The petitioner was not discriminated. 4 8. There was no provision for giving notional promotion in the Rules and promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector is covered under Police Rules 13.9. The petitioner made representation after his retirement only in the year 2004 which was replied by Additional Director General of Police. 9. The proficiency step-up after completion of 8/18 years of service was introduced with effect from 01.01.1986, before that there was no provision for proficiency step-up. The petitioner was given the benefit of proficiency step-up with effect from 01.01.1986 vide order dated 16.03.1991. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the petition. The petitioner has filed rejoinder and has reiterated his case. 10. I have heard the petitioner in person and learned Additional Advocate General along with learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondents. The first relief prayed by the petitioner is for granting proficiency increment after rendering 18 years of service. The respondents in their reply have stated that petitioner was given benefit of proficiency step-up with effect from 01.01.1986 vide order dated 16.03.1991. The respondents have referred to order dated 16.03.1991 Annexure R-1 in their reply, but in fact no Annexure R-1 has been placed on record. It appears for reasons best known to the respondents Annexure R-1 was not placed on record. 11. This apart, there are specific averments in the reply that proficiency step-up with effect from 01.01.1986 was given to petitioner vide order dated 16.03.1991. There is no specific denial in the rejoinder that proficiency step-up with effect from 01.01.1986 was not given to the petitioner vide order dated 16.03.1991. The petitioner has 5 simply denied that he was not given benefit of 18 years of service and Annexure R-1 dated 16.03.1991 has not been placed on record only to mislead. There is no material on record to record a finding that respondents have made a false statement in the reply that proficiency step-up with effect from 01.01.1986 was given to petitioner vide order dated 16.03.1991. The petitioner, thus, is not entitled to proficiency step-up/increment as claimed by him. 12. The petitioner has claimed consideration of his case for promotion as Sub Inspector without Upper Class Training on the ground that he was considered for training only when his two years of service was left. It appears from the petition and the reply that Upper Class Training is necessary for promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector. The respondents have taken the plea that as per Rules the petitioner became eligible to undergo Upper Class Course in July, 1992, he was selected to undergo the said course in November, 1992, April, 1993 and January, 1994, but every time he refused to undergo the said training. 13. The petitioner is to blame himself and to none for promotion as Sub Inspector. It is not the case of the petitioner that without Upper Class Training, he could be promoted as Sub Inspector, hence, petitioner is not entitled to consideration of his case as Sub Inspector of Police without Upper Class Training. The relief No.3 prayed in the petition is connected with relief No.2 to which petitioner is not found entitled. There is no question of notional promotion of petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police when he was not eligible for promotion for the post of Sub Inspector of Police. The 6 petitioner has not projected the case in the petition that in absence of Upper Class Training, he was entitled for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for notional promotion as Sub Inspector of Police. 14. The relief No.4 claimed in the petition is arrears of amount on account of proficiency step-up/increment and promotion. The findings have already been recorded above that the petitioner had already been given proficiency step-up with effect from 01.01.1986 vide order dated 16.03.1991. The petitioner is not entitled to promotion as Sub Inspector as claimed by him. The petitioner superannuated on 30.04.1994. It has been stated in the reply that representations were made by the petitioner only after his retirement in the year 2004. The petition was filed on 08.08.2005. It is not believable that from 01.01.1986 the petitioner was not paid arrears of proficiency step-up/increments. The petition is hit by delay and laches, but still if some amount is payable to the petitioner on account of proficiency step-up then the department will look into this aspect and pay such arrears to the petitioner immediately. 15. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference. In view of findings and observations recorded above, the petition is dismissed. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the petitioner immediately. May 20, 2011 (Kuldip Singh), ( krt) Judge.