* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI #39 + LPA 705/2008 BUDH PRAKASH ..... Appellant Through Mr . Ravindra S. Garia, Advocate. Versus D.T.C. & ORS. ..... Respondent Through Mr. J.S. Bhasin and Ms. Rashmi Priya, Advcoates for DTC CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL O R D E R % 06.05.2009 This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 29th July, 2008 dismissing the appellant’s writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5439/2007. The appellant is a Conductor employed with the respondent Delhi Transport Corporation (`DTC’). On 8th September, 1998, he was on duty in Bus No. DL 1P2592 carrying passengers from Delhi to Dehradun. The bus was attacked by four armed persons while passing through the jurisdiction of Police Station Behari Garh, District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. They tried to stop the bus and when it did not, the robbers started firing with their firearms and attempted to loot and injure the passengers. The appellant pounced upon one of the robbers and snatched his pistol. Upon this, the four robbers got alarmed and escaped. In regard to this incident, an FIR was registered at Police Station Behari Garh. A copy of the said FIR has been enclosed with the present appeal. It records the statement of the appellant describing the incident as aforementioned. It also mentions that the driver also sustained injuries as a result of firing. A copy of the injury report and the discharge summary dated 11th September, 1998 has also been annexed to the appeal. It shows that the appellant was treated at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New LPA No. 705-2008 Page 1 of 7 Delhi. 2. The appellant has also placed on record a copy of a letter dated 5th November, 1998 written by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur stating that both the driver and the conductor of the bus “had showed exemplary courage and fortitude, and not even being concerned for their own lives, despite being injured, had saved the bus from being robbed”. He recommended that the driver and the conductor “may be suitably rewarded and may be granted promotion for their meritorious service”. Letter dated 5th November, 1998 reads as follows: “Dear Sir, It is to be informed that, on 08.09.1998 bus No. DL- 1P-A-2592, belonging to the Delhi Transport Corporation had, been proceeding from Delhi towards Dehradun. Its driver had been Shri Mahipal Singh, badge No. 1143, while its conductor had been Sh ri Budh Prakash, badge No. 20333. When the said bus had proceeded towards Dehradun, just after crossing Police Station Behari Garh, District Saharanpur, on Dehradun road, at about 7 O’clock, 4 miscreants, who had already been present within the same, had taken out their country made pistols, and on the strength of the said arms had, threatened the driver Shri Mahipal Singh and conductor Shri Budh Prakash, of the said bus and had, asked them to stop the bus. However , on their not stopping the said bus, the miscreants, with an intention of murdering the two of them and in order to commit robbery within the said bus, had commenced firing from the arms within their respective possession . On account of the said occurrence, both the aforesaid driver and the conductor of the said bus had, sustained injuries. Even despite all this, driver Mahipal Singh and conductor Budh Prakash, had then snatched away one country made pistol from one of the robbers. Getting scared and frightened as a result of the same, the said miscreants had jumped from the said bus and had, made good their escape. However, the passengers traveling within the said bus, escaped from being so robbed. The aforesaid driver and conductor of the said bus, had showed exemplary courage and fortitude, and not even being concerned for their own lives, despite being injured, had saved the bus from being robbed. In this connection Case Crime No. 85/1998 under Section 307 I.P.C. had been registered at Police Station Behari Garh. A copy of the concerned First Information Report is hereby LPA No. 705-2008 Page 2 of 7 annexed herewith. 2. Therefore, in order to encourage bus driver Shri Mahipal Singh and bus conductor Shri Budh Prakash, it is hereby recommended to the effect that, they may be suitably rewarded and may be granted promotion for their meritorious service. With regards, Sd/-illegible 5/11 [Surya Nath Singh]” 3. It appears that despite the recommendation from the Additional Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur, the DTC did nothing. It appears that in regard to a similar incident of a bus being attacked by a gang of dacoits, a driver Shri Ram Prasad Singh of Bus No.7550 of I.P.Depot displayed extra ordinary courage. The DTC awarded him an out of turn promotion on 22nd August, 1988. Likewise, one Shri Satish Kumar Tyagi, Driver of Bus No.8562 was promoted as Assistant Traffic Inspector. Citing the above instances, the appellant made a representation to the DTC on 12th August, 2005. By an order dated 7th November, 2006, the DTC informed the appellant that at the meeting of the DTC Board held on 12th September, 2006, a Resolution had been passed granting him two advance increments with prospective effect “on account of extra courage shown by him by saving the passengers from looting while performing the duty on Delhi-Dehradun route”. The appellant was aggrieved by the non grant of any promotion to him and, therefore, made representations on 29th November, 2006 and 19th December, 2006. Since, there was no response from the DTC, the appellant filed the aforementioned writ petition in this Court. The learned Single Judge declined to grant any relief holding that the policy to grant reward to employees who displayed acts of courage did not create any vested right in such employees and, therefore, no case had been made out for grant of out of turn promotion to the appellant. While directing to issue notice in the appeal, the Division Bench had LPA No. 705-2008 Page 3 of 7 required the learned counsel for the DTC to seek instructions if the DTC would be willing to consider the case of the appellant for grant of an appropriate reward in line with the decision taken in respect of the other two persons. Learned counsel for the DTC, on instructions, informed this court that the decision would have to be taken by the DTC Board and that in any event a specific direction would have to be issued by this Court to the DTC Board for reconsidering its decision dated 12th September, 2006. The Division Bench recorded a categorical finding in para nos. 8 & 9 as follows : “8. The facts are not in dispute at all. In our view, both the driver and the conductor in the instant case have been displayed extraordinary courage in preventing loss of lives and property of the passengers. They managed to successfully prevent the four armed dacoits from looting the passengers and causing injuries to them. In that process they sustained injuries themselves. The mere grant of two increments and that too after eight years after the incident, and then again after repeated representations by the appellant, can hardly be said to be commensurate with the risk undertaken. It fails to adequately acknowledge the devotion to duty displayed by the appellant. In fact, the driver was granted two advance increments on 12th May, 2005. A similar decision in respect of appellant was taken more than one year later and only after the appellant made a representation on 12th August 2005. 9. Employees such as appellant who risk their own lives to ensure the safety of the passengers of a public transport corporation certainly deserve an appropriate appreciation of their extraordinary effort. The DTC should, in our view, encourage such employees at the appropriate time and in a fitting manner. We are of the considered view that this is a case while DTC Board should review its decision dated 12th September, 2006 and consider the case of the appellant for grant of out-of-turn promotion. If the DTC is of the view that the driver of the bus in question also deserves to be promoted likewise, it should do so without waiting for a specific request in that regard by the driver.” 4. Accordingly the DTC Board was directed to take a fresh decision and consider the case of the appellant for grant of an out-of-turn promotion within a period of four weeks. The order of the learned LPA No. 705-2008 Page 4 of 7 single Judge was set aside. In compliance of the order of the Division Bench, DTC has filed an affidavit dated 30th April, 2009 along with the copy of the decision taken by the DTC Board. It is seen from the affidavit along with copy of the decision taken by the DTC Board that the DTC has merely reiterated its earlier decision in the minutes of the DTC Board Meeting which is reproduced below: “Extract from the Draft Minutes of the DTC Board Meeting held on 2 5.3.2009, as approved by the Chairman Resolution No. 3/2009: To reconsider the case of Out of Turn Promotion to the Post of Assistant Traffic Inspector to Sh. Budh Prakash Conductor Badge No. 20333, in the list of the order dated 8.12.2008 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The Board considered the agenda item and discussed the matter in detail. The Board also discussed the case of Shri Mahipal Singh, Driver B. No. 11563 performing duty on the same bus alongwith Shri Budh Prakash, Conductor B.No. 20333. The Board noted that vide Resolution No. 22/2005 dt. 12.5.2005. It has decided to award. Shri Mahipal Singh, Driver by granting two advance increments with prospective effect and similar benefit was subsequently extended to Shri Budh Prakash, Conductor by the Chair man vide orders dated 29.4.2006. The Board also approved the same vide Resolution No. 77/2006 dated 12.9.2006. The Board after considering all the facts of the case, decided that the benefits extended to the employees including Shri Budh Prakash, Conductor for recognition of their bravery are considered as sufficient in this case.” (Emphasis Supplied) 5. We are shocked to see the manner in which the directions given by this Court have been considered by the DTC. The directions were in the light of the findings recorded by the Division Bench of this Court extracted above. It was categorically observed that both the Driver and the Conductor in the instant case have displayed extraordinary courage in preventing loss of lives and property of the passengers and managed to successfully prevent the four armed dacoits from looting LPA No. 705-2008 Page 5 of 7 the passengers and causing injuries to them. It was also noted by this Court that the mere grant of two increments and that too after eight years after the incident, and then again after repeated representations by the appellant, can hardly be said to be commensurate with the risk undertaken. It fails to adequately acknowledge the devotion to duty displayed by the appellant. It was further observed that the employees such as appellant who risk their own lives to ensure the safety of the passengers of a public transport corporation certainly deserve an appropriate appreciation of their extraordinary effort and in fact the DTC should encourage such employees at the appropriate time. It was thus made clear that the case of the appellant is not different then the case of Satish Kumar Tyagi and Ram Prasad Singh, who were awarded out-of-turn promotion for displaying extraordinary courage in preventing loss of lives and property of the passengers. The Court has also directed that if the DTC is of the view that the driver of the bus in question also deserves to be promoted likewise, it should do so without waiting for a specific request in this regard. It is seen from the minutes extracted above that the findings of the Division Bench were not considered by the Board. In fact, there is no reason given by the Board as to why the case of the appellant is different from the case of the Satish Kumar Tyagi and Ram Prasad Singh. The tenor of the minutes smacks with utter disregard to the direction given by this Court. It mechanically confirms it earlier decision. What was implicit in the order of the Division Bench was that the appellant and also the driver of the bus ought to be treated on par with the Satish Kumar Tyagi and Ram Prasad Singh, who were rewarded in similar cases of out-of-turn promotion. However, the members of the Board chose to pass a mechanical order once again rejecting the application completely disregarding the recommendation LPA No. 705-2008 Page 6 of 7 of this Court. No useful purpose would be served in remanding back the matter to the Board. In our opinion, this is a fit case where the appellant as well as the driver of the bus both deserved to be treated on par with the case of Satish Kumar Tyagi and Ram Prasad Singh. They be awarded out-of-turn promotion on the similar lines. It is ordered accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J MAY 06, 2009 dk LPA No. 705-2008 Page 7 of 7