IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT R A N C H I
----
L.P.A. NO. 178 of 2009
----
Md. Hafiz Razak . ...... Appellant.
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. D.I.G. of Police, Wireless, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Superintendent of Police, Wireless, Jharkhand.
5. Asloke Yadav.
....... Respondents.
----
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
---
For the Appellant: Dr. S.N.Pathak.
For the respondents: Mr.Indranil Bhadhuri,J.C. to
Advocate General.
-----
07/15.02.2010
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Hafiz Razak
who was the petitioner along with one Asloke Yadav in W.P(S)
NO.4975/2007 which had been filed claiming the benefit of the
Assured Career Progression (ACP in short) in view of the
implementation of the scheme by virtue of a Court’s decision
rendered in the case of Jharkhand Police Force Vs. State of
Jharkhand.
The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge
by judgment and order dated 31.07.2008. The appeal thereafter had
been filed by only one of the petitioners i.e. the appellant, Hafiz
Razak assailing the judgment and order passed by the learned Single
Judge referred to hereinbefore which is time barred by 234 days
which is approximately seven months. However, an application for
condonation of delay also has been filed along with the appeal but
there is hardly any ground in the application to condone the same as
no valid or convincing reason has been assigned in the application.
In spite of this huge delay we permitted the counsel for
the appellant to address us on the merit of the appeal and on
appreciation of the same and after hearing the counsel for the
appellant in the light of the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge, we have been able to gather that the appellant has no
case even on merit. The plea taken by the appellant was to the
effect that he was entitled to A.C.P benefit as he had already
completed 12 years of service which is more than ten years and
admittedly is the minimum requirement for granting the benefit of
A.C. P. scheme.
2
Counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the appellant
was not entitled to the benefit of A.C.P. as there was requirement of
two months departmental training and the appellant for his category
also was required to produce the matriculation certificate. But the
appellant could not be sent for training at the relevant time as he
had not produced his matriculation certificate and was rightly not
granted the benefit of A.C.P.
Learned counsel for the appellant however, sought to
counter the submission of the counsel for the respondent-State and
submitted that the appellant was entitled to be sent for training at
the relevant time in the category of A.S.I. as the appellant was
already a matriculate but in the wake of the fact that the appellant
had failed to establish his case that he was a matriculate at the
relevant time, this plea that he was wrongly not sent for training has
no legal force to sustain his stand.
Since the appellant had failed to fulfill the criterion for
sending him to departmental training as he was not a matriculate at
the relevant time, his plea that he was wrongly denied the A.C.P.
benefit in spite of having completed the minimum number of years in
service for claiming the ACP benefit, obviously could not have been
sustained. Thus the appeal preferred by the appellant has no
substance on merit apart from the fact that the delay of seven
months in filing the appeal has also not been explained.
However, we noticed that the appellant had been denied
the benefit of ACP only on the ground that at the relevant time he
had not produced the matriculation certificate due to which he was
not sent for departmental training. But, subsequently, if the appellant
had produced the matriculate certificate, he surely would be entitled
to be sent for departmental training and after completion of the
departmental training, the benefit for ACP scheme obviously will
accrue in his favour, hence, mere dismissal of the writ petition by the
learned Single Judge would not be allowed to come in his way.
With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is dismissed.
(Gyan Sudha Misra,C.J.)
( R.R.Prasad, J )
Biswas