Aslok Yadav and Hafiz Razak vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Amareshwar Sahay, J.—Heard the counsel for the parties.

Both the writ petitioners are the police constables and they have claimed that they are entitled to get the benefit of the A.C.P. in view of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of "Jharkhand Police Association, Wireless v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2007 (1) JLJR 499. Further prayer in the writ application is to quash the order dated 17/04/2007, contained in Annexure-2, whereby the respondent Superintendent of Police, has rejected the claim of the petitioner No. 1 Aslok Yadav for grant of A.C.P. on the ground that he has not undergone the required training for getting the said benefit.

According to the writ petitioners, petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Constable on 15/11/1986. In the year 1990, his service was given to the Department of Wireless and he remained in the said department till 2007. After cadre division, both the writ petitioners were allocated Jharkhand cadre. Petitioner No. 1 claims that he has completed 21 years of service and, as such, he is entitle to the benefit his case by filing representation to the Superintendent of Police on 07/03/2007 for giving him the benefit of A.C.P. but the same was rejected by issue of Annexure-2 dated 17/04/2007.

Petitioner No. 2 claims that he was appointed in the year 1983 and he remained at Ranchi till he was transferred to Patna in the year 2000 in the Department of Wireless. He has also been allocated Jharkhand cadre and according to him, he put in 24 years of service and, therefore, he is entitled to get the benefit of A.C.P. Scheme. He also made a representation vide Annexure-3 on 08/04/2007 for grant of the benefit of A.C.P. but it is stated that he has not been given the said benefit till date.

According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to get the said benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme as they have already completed 12 years or 24 years of service. It is also submitted that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of "Jharkhand Police Association, Wireless v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2007 (1) JLJR 499.

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4 Superintendent of Police. It has been stated therein that it is essential for a matriculate constable to pass Police Training Course (P.T.C. Training) for getting promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector. Similarly, it is essential for a non-matriculate constable to pass Senior Leadership Course (S.L.C. Training) to get a promotion to the next higher rank, i.e. Hawaldar. It is also stated that the petitioners Aslok Yadav and Hafiz Razak have not passed the departmental examination, which a pre condition for grant of Assured 14/08/2002, contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, certain resolutions have been taken by the State Government whereby the terms, conditions and guidelines for granting the benefit of Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) were notified. It is further stated that as per the aforesaid Government resolution the petitioners would be entitled to get the benefit of A.C.P. Scheme after completion of 12/24 years of service subject to the conditions that they are found fit for getting promotion but the petitioners were not found fit for Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) because they did not undergo and pass the departmental training, which is essential for promotion to the next rank or for the benefit of Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.).

It is also stated that by issue of Annexure-B dated 2014th14thMarch 2003, the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, intimated to all the Superintendents of Police that for providing benefit of A.C.P. in every districts training programme should be conducted from 16/04/2003. Pursuant thereto, by issue of Annexure-C and office order was issued under the Signature of D.I.G., J.A.P. whereby six matriculates constable including the petitioner No. 1 Aslok Yadav were directed to join the training to be started from 16/04/2003 but the petitioner did not join the said training and applied for exemption, which was granted to him vide Annexure-D dated 14th may 2003 making it clear that the benefit of A.C.P. would be given only after completion of the special training. By issue of Annexure- E, petitioner No. 1 was again directed to join the training of eight weeks on 27/06/2003, which had already started from 25/06/2003 but again the petitioner applied for exemption from the said training, which was allowed by issue of Annexure-F again making it clear that he would get (Sic) after he undergoes successfully the special training dated 16/08/2003, contained in Annexure-G but he again did not join and applied for exemption by filing an application, contained in Annexure-H wherein he undertook that unless he gets the special training, he would not claim the benefit of A.C.P.

By issue of Annexure-I dated 11/10/2003 an office order was issued under the signature of the Director General of Police mentioning therein that in order to get the benefit of A.C.P. a candidate has to successfully undergo departmental training and, therefore, for providing the said benefit to the Constables departmental training was being given to them. It was also mentioned in the said letter that for matriculate police constables A.C.P. training would be treated as equivalent to PTC training and for non-matriculate constables A.C.P. training would be considered equivalent to SLC (Hawaldar Training). Again by issue of Annexure-J dated 03/11/2003, the DIG, Wireless, asked the petitioner No. 1 to join the training going to be held on and from 24/11/2003 but the petitioner again filed an application, contained in Annexure-K, for exemption from the said training with the same undertaking that he would not claim the benefit of ACP without completing the training, which was accordingly allowed by issue of Annexure-L dated 21/11/2003. The petitioner No. 1 was again given a chance to join the training going to be held from 12/03/2004 but again he on the ground of his illness showed inability to join the training, which was allowed by issue of an order contained in Annexure-N. On 12/03/2004 an office order was issued by the Inspector General of Police (Training and Modernization) that the training programme would be conducted from 08/05/2004 and, therefore, all those constables, who have not undergone the training must be sent for the same and (sic) could not be any further training course. The petitioner No. 1 was 08/05/2004 but again he did not join the training course and applied for exemption, which was allowed by Annexure-P dated 21/05/2004.

Similarly, petitioner No. 2 Hafiz Razak was also intimated by issue of Annexure-Q dated 16/08/2003 that he should join the training course to be started from 18/08/2003 but he also filed an application on 18/08/2003 for exemption on the ground of illness of his wife, which was allowed by issue of Annexure-R dated 02/09/2003. By issue of Annexure-T the petitioner No. 2 was again asked to go for training, which was going to be started from 05/12/2003 but he again filed an application for exemption, contained in Annexure-U, which was allowed by issue of Annexure-V.

From perusal of the aforementioned annexure of the counter affidavit whereby the exemptions were granted to both the petitioners from attending the training on their request, it appears that it was clearly mentioned that they would not get the benefit of A.C.P. unless they successfully complete the special training.

From the facts noticed above, it is absolutely clear that both the petitioners were given more than sufficient opportunities to join the special training programme in order to get the benefit of A.C.P. but all the times on one pretext or the other, they always avoided and did not join the said training conducted for giving such benefit.

The petitioners have not disputed these facts stated in the counter affidavit. They also do not dispute that a police constable has to be successfully complete the training course for getting the benefit of A.C.P. Scheme.

No rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioners controverting the stand of the State respondents. The (Sic) successful completion of training is compulsory for grant of promotion or for grant of A.C.P.

The petitioners have totally based their claim on the basis of a judgment of the Single Bench of this Court in the case of "Jharkhand Police Association, Wireless v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2007 (1) JLJR 499 (supra).

Now, let us examine the aforesaid decision.

The learned Single Judge has held that no doubt the Training is a compulsory part for grant of promotion under the A.C.P. Scheme. However, it is the Department, who has to depute a person for the Training and the concerned employee has no choice.

The learned Single Judge further held that only thirty seats were available for imparting Training in the Institute and in such a situation non-passing of the Examination within 12/24 years was not within the control of the employee as he was to be deputed for the Training by the employer and, therefore, if there was any delay in deputing an employee for Training either due to non-availability of seats in the Training Centre or for any other reason, the employee could not be deprived of the benefit of A.C.P. subsequently, when he is considered for such benefit after undergoing Training. On acquiring Training, such an employee is entitled to the benefit of A.C.P. Scheme retrospectively on completion of 12/24 years of service, irrespective of the fact whether he had acquired such Training within 12/24 years or not.

The decision in the case of "Jharkhand Police Association, Wireless" (Supra) is also of no help to the petitioners because in that case also it has been held that an employee is required to undergo the W.P. (S) No. 6264/2007, i.e. the case of Jharkhand Police Association, Wireless, the writ petitioners had undergone the Departmental Grade-II (Opr.) Training after completion of 24 years of service and they passed the said Training and, therefore, they were allowed the benefit of A.C.P. Scheme.

But in the present case as we have already noticed that in spite of the fact that several opportunities were given to both the petitioners but they did not join the special Training Course, which were conducted specifically for giving benefit of A.C.P. Scheme. Therefore, the petitioners cannot blame any person other than themselves if they have not been given the benefit of A.C.P. Scheme.

Successful completion of Departmental Training is a condition precedent for an employee to make himself entitle for the benefit of A.C.P. Scheme after completion of 12/24 years of service, which the petitioners do not fulfill and, hence, they are held to be not entitled to the benefit of A.C.P. Scheme. The judgment of a Single Bench of this Court in the case of "Jharkhand Police Association, Wireless" is also of no help to the petitioners for the reasons already stated herein above.

The concerned respondent has rightly rejected the claim for such benefit by issue of Annexure-2.

No case at all is made out for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, having found no merit, this writ application is dismissed but without cost.