2026:JHHC:17287 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5607 of 2023 ….….. Amit Kumar, aged about 54 years, S/o Surya Narayan Sharma, R/o 16, Green Park, Near Shyam Automobiles, Piskamore, Hehal, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar & District-Ranchi. ..… Petitioner (s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, officiating at Project Building, H.E.C Town Ship, P.O., P.S Dhurwa & District - Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison & Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, officiating at Project Building, H.E.C Town Ship, P.O., P.S Dhurwa & District - Ranchi. 3. The Under Secretary, Department of Home, Prison & Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, Officiating at Project Building, H.E.C Town Ship, P.O., P.S Dhurwa & District - Ranchi. 4. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, officiating at Police Headquarters, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S Dhurwa & District - Ranchi. 5. The Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Jharkhand, officiating at Police Headquarters, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S Dhurwa & District - Ranchi. ..... Respondent(s) ….….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Adv Ms. Aprajita Bharadwaj, Adv Ms. Tanya Singh, Adv Mrs. Satakchhi Priya Verma, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasen, A.C. to AAG-IA ….. C.A.V. ON: 12/05/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:15/06/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- i. For showing cause the respondents as to why and on what basis/reason they are not adhering to their own policy decision contained in letter no. 10785 dated 17.10.1998 (Annexure - 4) which in clear and specific term stipulates that the Police Inspectors who have been awarded with the Gallantry Award President Police 2026:JHHC:17287 2 Medal will be given seniority three years, however even in spite of the fact that the petitioner has also been awarded with the Gallantry Award President Police Medal way back in the year 2002, he has not been awarded the seniority of three years of and the petitioner further prays for holding and declaring the office order contained in memo no. 1477 dated 16.06.2016 issued by the respondent no. 5 whereby and whereunder he has expressed that on account of petitioner already having granted promotion in the rank of Dy.S.P. his claim of seniority stands as infructuous as bad and non-est in view of the Government decision, above referred. ii. For showing cause the respondents as to how and under what circumstances the matter of shifting of date of promotion of the petitioner in the rank of Dy.S.P. could be placed or decided at the level of Respondent no. 4 or 5 or even by a committee headed by the respondent no. 5 instead of placing the same before the State Government and for further showing cause the respondents as to whether in the light of the reference made by the office of respondent no. 5 vide letter dated 26.10.2016 which has been duly responded by the office of the Respondent no. 2 and 3 vide letter no. 87 dated 04.01.2017, the respondents are sitting tight over the matter and why the grievances of the petitioner has not been placed before the State Government for appropriate decision which is amounting to serious discouragement to the petitioner who has been always praised for his contribution at all his ranks i.e Sub-Inspector, Inspector and even as Dy.S.P. and the petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate directions upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith take final decision on the reference made by the Respondent no. 5 to the State Government vide his letter dated 26.10.2016. iii. For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction(s) in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents directing them to correct and shift the date of promotion of the petitioner in the rank of Dy.S.P. (with appropriate seniority position) from 18.07.2012 to the retrospective date i.e 17.05.2010 when the juniors / non- entitled persons were granted the appropriate promotion to which the petitioner was actually entitled and the petitioner prays for further directing the respondents to grant all consequential effects and benefits to the petitioner as a result of the said correction /shifting of the date of promotion to which he is found legally entitled. AND/OR For any other appropriate relief or reliefs for which the Petitioner is found to be entitled in the fact and circumstances of this case. 3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in the erstwhile State of Bihar vide Memo No. 6656/P-3/CPS-5 dated 21.08.1994. After training, he joined service and was confirmed with effect from 08.11.1997. During service, he was awarded 2026:JHHC:17287 3 the Gallantry Award/President Police Medal twice; first pursuant to notification dated 22.02.1999, published in the Gazette of India on 13.03.1999, and again vide notification dated 18.10.2002, published on 23.11.2002. 4. The petitioner is claiming benefit of three years’ seniority under Letter No. 10785 dated 17.10.1998, which provides such benefit to Gallantry Award/President Police Medal awardees for promotion from Inspector of Police to Deputy Superintendent of Police. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the seniority list issued vide Memo No. 1120/P dated 22.05.2009, and final seniority list vide Memo No. 1002 dated 30.04.2010, the said benefit was not granted despite his objection dated 04.06.2009. 6. According to the petitioner, if three years’ seniority had been granted, his seniority as Inspector would have been reckoned from 08.11.1994 instead of 08.11.1997, and he would have been considered for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 2010, when juniors were promoted vide Notification No. 2875 dated 17.05.2010. However, the petitioner was promoted belatedly on 18.07.2012 vide Memo No. 3242. 7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted representation dated 14.03.2016, but his claim was rejected vide Memo No. 1477/P dated 16.06.2016 on the ground that, since he had 2026:JHHC:17287 4 already been promoted; the matter had become infructuous. He again submitted representation dated 27.09.2016, whereafter the Inspector General of Police forwarded the matter to the Home Department on 26.10.2016. The Home Department vide Letter No. 87 dated 04.01.2017 directed reconsideration of his claim, but no final relief / consequential relief was granted. Being aggrieved by such action, the petitioner had preferred the present writ application. 8. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the respondents have acted arbitrarily in not granting the petitioner the benefit of three years’ seniority despite the fact that the petitioner admittedly holds the Gallantry Award/President Police Medal. He contended that Letter No. 10785 dated 17.10.1998 creates a clear entitlement in favour of such gallantry awardees for grant of three years’ seniority for the purpose of consideration of promotion from Inspector of Police to Deputy Superintendent of Police and the grounds taken by the Respondents cannot be held as legal and justified to deny the benefits to which the petitioner is otherwise entitled to as per the strict and unambiguous provisions of the State’s own scheme / letter no. 10785 dated 17.10.1998. 9. Learned Sr. Counsel had contended that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim vide Memo No. 1477/P dated 16.06.2016 2026:JHHC:17287 5 on the ground that the matter had become infructuous after his promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police is wholly misconceived. The grievance of the petitioner was not merely for promotion simpliciter, but for correction of seniority and shifting of the date of promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police from 18.07.2012 to 17.05.2010, with all consequential benefits, therefore, the subsequent promotion of the petitioner could not have rendered his claim infructuous. 10. Mr. Kumar lastly submitted that similarly situated police officers, including one Ajay Kumar and other officers, were granted seniority by modifying their seniority position in view of the very same Letter No. 10785 dated 17.10.1998. The denial of similar benefit to the petitioner, despite his distinguished service record and gallantry awards, amounts to hostile discrimination and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 11. Per contra, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1994 and his promotion as Inspector of Police was granted with effect from 08.11.1997 therefore the petitioner’s claim for shifting the date of seniority as Inspector of Police to 08.11.1994 is not sustainable, as in the year 1994 itself the petitioner was appointed as Sub- Inspector of Police. He further submitted that the petitioner has 2026:JHHC:17287 6 already been granted promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on 18.07.2012 and, therefore, the claim made by him is not legally sustainable. 12. He lastly submitted that the promotion granted to the petitioner by the Home Department vide notification no. 3242 as Deputy Superintendent of Police from Inspector of Police w.e.f. 18.07.2012 is as per the rules and requires no interference as per the prayer made in the writ petition. 13. However, Ld. Counsel representing the State could not controvert the provisions of the State’s scheme as notified vide Home Department letter no. 10785 dated 17.10.1998 which provides for granting 3 years seniority to an officer with no other ridder or conditions for denial of the same if the officer concerned is a Gallantry Award / President Police Medal recipient. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the main grievance of the petitioner is that despite being awarded the Gallantry Award/President Police Medal, he has been denied the benefit of three years’ seniority under Letter No. 10785 dated 17.10.1998, and consequently he has been deprived of consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police from the date when his juniors were promoted. 2026:JHHC:17287 7 15. The main issues which arise for consideration before this Court are as follows: i. Whether the petitioner, being a recipient of the Gallantry Award/President Police Medal, is entitled to the benefit of three years’ seniority in terms of Letter No. 10785 dated 17.10.1998 issued by the Home Department, Government of Bihar ? ii. Whether the order contained in Memo No. 1477/P dated 16.06.2016, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected as infructuous merely because he had already been promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, is legally sustainable ? iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to correction/shifting of his date of promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police from 18.07.2012 to 17.05.2010, with all consequential benefits ? 16. With regard to the first issue, it appears that Letter No. 10785 dated 17.10.1998 clearly provides that a police officer who has been awarded the Gallantry Award/President Police Medal shall be granted seniority of three years for the purpose of consideration of promotion from the post of Inspector of Police to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. For ready reference the relevant portion of Letter No. 10785 dated 17.10.1998 is quoted herein below: “(4) वरȣयता के ͧलए राçĚपǓत पुͧलस पदक से अलंकृ त आर¢ी Ǔनरȣ¢क/सूबेदार/पǐरबारȣ Ĥवर कोǑट के पदाͬधकाǐरयɉ को आर¢ी उपाधी¢क कȧ कोǑट मɅ ĤोÛनǓत मɅ तीन वष[ कȧ Ĥाथͧमकता दȣ जायेगी।” 17. The petitioner admittedly received the Gallantry Award/President Police Medal and there is no dispute with 2026:JHHC:17287 8 regard to the fact that he was a recipient of such gallantry recognition. 18. Once the policy decision contained in Letter No. 10785 dated 17.10.1998 is admitted and once the petitioner falls within the class of police officers for whose benefit the said policy was framed; denial of the said benefit to the petitioner without assigning any legally sustainable reason cannot be countenanced. The respondents are bound by their own policy decision and cannot apply the same selectively. 19. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner cannot be granted seniority from 08.11.1994 on the ground that he was then serving as Sub-Inspector of Police does not answer the real issue. The petitioner’s claim is not for actual promotion as Inspector from 1994, but for grant of notional seniority benefit of three years for the limited purpose of consideration of promotion from Inspector to Deputy Superintendent of Police, as contemplated under Letter No. 10785 dated 17.10.1998. The very object of the said policy is to give accelerated seniority benefit to gallantry awardees. Therefore, the respondents cannot defeat the policy by mechanically stating that the petitioner was appointed as Sub- Inspector in the year 1994. 20. It is further evident that in the case of similarly situated officers, the benefit of three years’ seniority was granted by 2026:JHHC:17287 9 modifying their seniority position and this fact has not been controverted by Ld. Counsel for the Respondents. Therefore, denial of the same benefit to the petitioner, who is also a gallantry awardee and has an unblemished and distinguished service record, amounts to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment. 21. Accordingly, the first issue is answered in favour of the petitioner, and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to consideration for grant of three years’ seniority in terms of Letter No. 10785 dated 17.10.1998. 22. Now coming to the second issue, the order contained in Memo No. 1477/P dated 16.06.2016 proceeds on the premise that since the petitioner had already been promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, the matter had become infructuous. Such reasoning is wholly misconceived. The petitioner’s grievance did not come to an end merely because he was promoted in the year 2012. His grievance was that he ought to have been granted the benefit of three years’ seniority and, on that basis, should have been considered for promotion along with his juniors in the year 2010 itself. 23. The right claimed by the petitioner was not merely for promotion, but for correct seniority, correct date of promotion, 2026:JHHC:17287 10 and consequential benefits. Therefore, subsequent promotion could not have rendered the dispute infructuous. The impugned order dated 16.06.2016 reflects non- application of mind to the actual grievance of the petitioner and is liable to be quashed. The second issue is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioner. 24. With regard to the third issue, this Court finds that the petitioner has specifically prayed for correction and shifting of his date of promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police from 18.07.2012 to 17.05.2010, i.e., the date on which juniors/others were granted promotion. Once it is held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of three years’ seniority in terms of Letter No. 10785 dated 17.10.1998; the natural consequence would be that his case ought to have been considered for promotion from the corrected seniority position. The denial of such benefit resulted in the petitioner being left out from consideration in the promotion exercise notified vide Notification No. 2875 dated 17.05.2010, and he was granted promotion only belatedly vide Memo No. 3242 dated 18.07.2012. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the inaction and erroneous approach of the respondents. 25. The third issue is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioner. 2026:JHHC:17287 11 26. Accordingly, in view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of three years’ seniority in terms of Letter No. 10785 dated 17.10.1998. Consequently, the order contained in Memo No. 1477/P dated 16.06.2016, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected as infructuous, is hereby, quashed and set aside. 27. The respondents are directed to correct/revise the seniority position of the petitioner by granting him the benefit of three years’ seniority and, upon such correction, shift the date of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police from 18.07.2012 to 17.05.2010, as prayed for in the writ petition, with all consequential service benefits, including seniority, notional fixation of pay, pensionary benefits and other admissible benefits. 28. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 29. As a result, the instant writ petition stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, is also disposed of. No cost. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:15/06/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 16.06.2026