The Allahabad High Court has held that an 85-year-old retired police officer was treated unfairly after the State failed to show that adverse remarks relied upon to deny him promotion had ever been communicated to him.
The court observed, “It was up to the department to demonstrate communication”, and further held, “We are convinced that petitioner was treated unfairly.”
The order was delivered by a division bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh on a petition filed by Ram Autar Singh Yadav against the State of Uttar Pradesh and another.
Read also: Gujarat High Court Quashes GST Recovery Order for Denial of Proper Hearing
The petitioner had retired in 1999 as a station officer and had been pursuing his claim for promotion for several years.
The petitioner had challenged the denial of promotion on the ground that his juniors had been promoted. His representation was rejected by the Director General of Police (DGP) on April 6, 2010, citing adverse remarks in his confidential reports and earlier punishments.
The State Public Services Tribunal dismissed his claim petition in 2012 and his review petition in 2013. Further, he had challenged the said order, but his writ petition before the High Court was later dismissed for non-prosecution in 2015.
Not only this, his restoration application was also dismissed for want of prosecution by the co-ordinate bench of the court on 11th December, 2025.
In the instant writ petition, the aforesaid application is the impugned order.
The High Court, while considering his restoration applications, noted that the petitioner was more than 85 years old and had regularly travelled to the court to pursue his case.
The bench ruled that,
“The denial of promotion based on the adverse entries do not support the DGP’s statement that petitioner was considered for promotion.”
It also noted that his challenge to the Tribunal’s order had never been heard on merits. The court found that the Tribunal had erred in placing the burden on the petitioner to prove that the adverse entries had not been communicated to him.
Read also: Administrative Transfer Cannot Result in Loss of Accrued Seniority: Chhattisgarh High Court
The bench observed that “a fact can be proved, while the negative cannot” and held that the department was required to demonstrate communication of the adverse entries.
It further noted that the State had no answer to the DGP’s statement that the petitioner had been considered for promotion, despite there being no record of his assessment, either in a sealed cover or otherwise.
The court also noted that the DGP’s order recorded that the petitioner had been interviewed and assessed on the basis of marks, with promotion being granted according to merit and seniority.
However, the State failed to produce the relevant marksheet or assessment record despite the court’s direction.
Allowing the restoration applications, the bench recalled the orders dismissing the earlier restoration application and the writ petition and restored the writ petition.
The court granted relief to the petitioner in terms of the following prayers:
“1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of ‘certiorari’ quashing the judgment dated 30-11-2012( Annexure No.5); passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, U.P. in Claim Petition NO. 1328 of 2010 (Ram Avtar Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Another).
……..
4. to Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of ‘mandamus’ directing the respondents to give to promote the petitioner on the post of Inspector of Civil Police with effect from 16.03.1980 and also to make payment of salary and other allowances admissible to the post of Station Officer In-charge from the year 1975.”
Accordingly, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner a promotion to the post of Inspector of Civil Police with effect from March 16, 1980, along with the corresponding salary and other admissible benefits.
The promotional salary and benefits were directed to be computed up to the date of his retirement, with corresponding retirement benefits, and compliance was ordered within four weeks.
Case: Ram Autar Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another
Case No: WRIT A No. – 8559 of 2015
Date of Order: 04.08.2026
Status: Disposed of
