The Madhya Pradesh High Court has instructed state authorities to grant an out-of-turn promotion to a police constable for his role in capturing a wanted criminal, characterizing the state government’s decision to offer a Rs 1,600 cash reward instead as deplorable.
In an order issued on August 21, Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke ruled that the constable, who joined the force in 1993, must receive the promotion under Regulation 70-A along with all consequential benefits retroactive to the date his counterparts were promoted. Deciding against remanding the matter back to administrative authorities after years of legal proceedings, the court directly mandated the promotional benefit.
Operation and Promotion Controversy
The case stems from a 2010 law enforcement operation targeting an absconding offender named Gulfam, who carried a reward of Rs 25,000. Gulfam was wanted by the Manak Chowk police station in connection with an extortion demand of Rs 10 lakh made to a businessman, along with other criminal charges. A police team subsequently traveled to Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, and apprehended him with assistance from the Uttar Pradesh Police and Special Task Force.
Following the arrest, the Ratlam Superintendent of Police specifically recommended the petitioner, along with two head constables, for an out-of-turn promotion in recognition of their active participation and bravery during the anti-dacoit operation. To substantiate his participation in the mission, the constable produced hotel bills, newspaper reports, reward lists, and official police diary entries.
Despite the recommendation, state authorities refused the promotion, taking the position that the constable was not suitable or eligible after evaluating his service role, and issued him a monetary reward of Rs 1,600 instead. Meanwhile, another police official was granted an out-of-turn promotion despite not being named in the official police records or the original recommendation list. The constable subsequently submitted a representation to the Deputy Inspector General before seeking relief from the High Court.
During the proceedings, advocate K. C. Raikwar argued on behalf of the constable that his client had demonstrated exemplary courage and that the state had unjustifiably ignored the specific recommendation of the superior officer. Government advocate Tarun Pagare countered on behalf of the state that the constable’s contributions had been considered and adequately compensated through the cash reward.
High Court Findings and Directive
Rejecting the state’s argument, Justice Phadke observed that while out-of-turn promotions under Regulation 70-A remain a discretionary measure rather than an absolute legal entitlement, such executive discretion must be exercised in a non-arbitrary and equitable manner.
The bench emphasized that recommendations from a Superintendent of Police carry significant weight, as the officer directly assesses operational conduct and performance. The court noted that reducing an officer’s courageous participation in a dangerous operation to a token monetary reward of Rs 1,600 risked dampening the morale of personnel facing life-threatening situations.
Given that similarly placed personnel involved in the same operation received promotions, the court held that withholding the benefit from the petitioner was mechanical and unfair, resulting in the directive to grant full promotional benefits.
