The Delhi High Court held that it has the authority to intervene and provide benefits such as 'Out of Turn Promotion' and 'Asadharan Karya Puraskar' based on policy/standing orders to ensure parity among officers. This intervention is justified when discrimination violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, guaranteeing equality before the law.

The decision was made by the division bench consisting of Hon’ble Justices Anoop Kumar Mendiratta and Justice V. Kameswar Rao 

In the context of the current situation, it was determined that there was no valid justification for reducing the promotion to the 'Puraskar' (award) for the Petitioner since the Petitioner's role was found to be equivalent to that of a Constable.

Both the Petitioner, Harinder Singh, and the Respondent, the Commissioner of Police, have filed separate writs to challenge the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Petitioner was dissatisfied with the order because it granted him an "out of turn promotion" to the position of Head Constable from the date of filing the proceedings, but it denied him the benefit of promotion retroactively to June 03, 2003. The Respondent was unhappy with the order because it favored the Petitioner.

The Petitioner's argument was that he was appointed as a Constable (Executive) on October 26, 1998. Based on his exceptional performance, he was put forward for an 'Out of Turn Promotion' to the position of Head Constable. However, the incentive committee did not endorse his promotion because his name was linked to an FIR (First Information Report) with pending proceedings. Nonetheless, the committee did recommend the promotion of another Constable named Joginder Singh.

As a result of this situation, the Petitioner, feeling dissatisfied, submitted a representation to the Respondent, which was subsequently declined. Following this, the Petitioner chose to file an Original Application (OA) to address the matter.

The argument put forward was that the promotion granted to Joginder Singh should have been on equal terms because the work or role of the Petitioner was not inferior. Furthermore, it was emphasized that the FIR registered against the Petitioner stemmed from a domestic dispute and had been quashed by the High Court. It was contended that the Incentive Committee's failure to recommend an 'Out of Turn Promotion' solely due to the pendency of criminal proceedings, which had been quashed, was unjust. It was strongly argued that granting the 'Asadharan Karya Puraskar' instead of 'Out of Turn Promotion' was both unfair and discriminatory.

The argument presented was that the FIR's quashing resulted from a settlement between the Petitioner and the Complainant, and therefore, it should not be considered an honorable acquittal. Additionally, it was pointed out that neither Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980 nor Standing Order No. 4/89 established an automatic entitlement to request ad-hoc 'Out of Turn Promotion'. It was further stressed that being acquitted or discharged in criminal proceedings did not, by itself, grant a candidate the authority to insist that the authorities select and appoint them.

In the observation, it was noted that, upon reviewing previous case precedents, the Court has intervened and granted benefits such as 'Out of Turn Promotion' and 'Asadharan Karya Puraskar' in accordance with policy and standing orders to ensure parity among officers, especially when discrimination resulted in a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Applying this principle to the current situation, it was determined that there was no compelling reason to reduce the promotion to 'Puraskar' in the case of the Petitioner, as the role and responsibilities of the Petitioner were on par with those of a Constable.

The ruling held that the perspective that the Incentive Committee believed that police officers who had merely apprehended some snatchers did not merit promotion seemed to be discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, especially when Constable Joginder Singh was granted an 'Out of Turn Promotion' for similar services.

The Bench expressed the view that while an employee may not have an absolute right to demand promotion, as it remains at the discretion of the Competent Authority, when evaluating the cases of the applicants, the Competent Authority is obligated to exercise this discretion reasonably, fairly, and in the interest of the public.

Therefore, the Court rejected both of the writ petitions and upheld the order of the Tribunal.

Case: Commissioner of Police and Ors. V. Harinder Singh and other connected matter, W.P.(C) 6989/2017.