State of Jammu and Kashmir vs Parbhat Singh

Gandhi, J.—This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against order dated 24.5.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 1435 of

1995 whereby while allowing the writ petition issued a writ of mandamus to the State to accord similar and equal treatment to the respondent as

granted to Mr. Sheikh Mehmood, Inspector Police, and for consideration for promotion to the rank of Inspector from 8.10.1982 with all

consequential benefits.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Parbhat Singh filed a writ petition No. 1435/1995 seeking relief for his consideration for

promotion to the rank of Inspector in Jammu and Kashmir Police department w.e.f. 8.10.1982 treating him to have been promoted as Dy., S.P.

w.e.f. June 1993 at par with Dy. S.P. Mr. Sheikh Mahmood and to allow other ancillary benefits. The respondent asserted in the writ petition that

he and one Sheikh Mahmood (the then Sub Inspectors) were recommended for `out or turn' promotion on the basis of their meritorious services

rendered in the police department. The appellants have turned down the recommendation for out of turn promotion. The police department was

according out of turn promotion to its personnel on the same grounds and the respondent has been discriminated. Said Sheikh Mahmood filed a

writ petition No. 2562/1991 for his out of turn promotion on the basis of meritorious services which came to be allowed by this court vide

judgment dated 19.17.1991 against which no appeal was taken by the State and the judgment stands implemented by promoting Sheikh

Mahmood S.I. under order No. 1069 of 1992 dt. 22.05.1993 to the rank of Inspector from 8.10.1982. The respondent alleging discrimination

claimed equal treatment challenging rejection of recommendation by means of writ petition which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge on

24.5.1996 observing as under :

.......Petitioner's case is that he and Sh. Sheikh Mehmood were sailing in the same boat and, as a matter of fact, petitioner possessed better merit

and suitability and had performed meritorious and outstanding ventures in apprehending ordered criminals etc. as against him and, that, his case for

out of turn promotion stood also recommended alongwith him. But he had been treated differently and deprived of the promotion.

It is, therefore, submitted that once the staterespondent had promoted Sh. Sheikh Mehmood to the post of Inspector and had implemented the

court judgment passed in writ petition No. 2562/1991 in this regard, petitioner also required to be given the similar treatment in all fairness.

I have gone through the record and the letters of the recommendations made by the superior officers in favour of the petitioner which show that the

petitioner's merit and performance was adjudged better as compared to Sh. Sheikh Mehmood. Now, that the staterespondent had promoted Sh.

Sheikh Mehmood, who was similarly circumstanced from 08.10.1982, a similar treatment cannot be denied to the petitioner in law ........

The appellants aggrieved of the writ court order have challenged its correctness and legality by filing this Letters Patent Appeal.

We have hard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

The appellants have challenged the order under appeal on the ground that the respondent cannot seek equal treatment and voice discrimination,

as the case of Mr. Sheikh Mahmood Inspector could not be contested by the State as whole or the state machinery was busy in combating

terrorism in the State and the judgment delivered in writ petition No.2562/1991 has been implemented for that reason. Whereas the case of the

respondent has been contested by the appellants and the relief claimed by him cannot be allowed on that analogy. It is not disputed that the

recommendations made in favour of the respondent and said Sheikh Mahmood for out of turn promotion were rejected by the appellants and

pursuant to the rejection, taking into consideration the meritorious service rendered by Sheikh Mahmood his writ petition has been allowed.

The stand of the appellants that the whole of the state machinery was busy in combating terrorism is not plausible and justified. It appears as if

the appellants were waiting for the judgment and implemented it, whereas in the present case the appellants have come forward to contest on the

same grounds which were available against the colleague of present respondent. Such an approach of the State is not deplorable, unjustified but

also cannot be appreciated to play and apply double standards sticks yard while dealing with similarly situated employees. The learned Single

Judge has in the course of his order observed that once the appellants have promoted Sheikh Mahmood to the post of Inspector and implemented

the court judgment, the respondent being similarly situated employee is also required to be given the similar treatment in all fairness. No fault can be

found with the approach of the learned Single Judge in peculiar circumstances of this case.

For the foregoing reasons we do not find any substance in the pleas raised and the grounds taken in the memorandum of the appeal. The appeal

is, therefore, dismissed.