It is strange that the aforementioned extensive amendments brought about by the RPF Amendment Act are not reflected even after more than three decades of their commencement -High Court

Admin

It would directly and adversely affect Arun Kumar, who is currently functioning as the DG/RPF

P. K.AGRAWAL… Petitioner

versus

UOI & ORS… Respondents

W.P.(C) 8963/2018 and C.M. APPL. 34465/2018 (stay)

O R D E R Dtd. 28.01.2020

Learned counsel for the Petitioner has brought before the Court the complete text of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) (Amendment) Act, 1985 (RPF Amendment Act). It is now clear that the reference made by this Court in its judgment dated 4th March, 2013 in W.P.(C) 6081/2012 (P.S.Rawal vs. Union of India) is to Section 19 (2) of the RPF Amendment Act, and not the RPF Act, 1957 (RPF Act) itself.

  1. What Section 19 (1) of the RPF Amendment Act does is to clarify that officers functioning at the time of the commencement of the RPF Amendment Act, shall be deemed to continue in the RPF (Force), as constituted under the RPF Act as amended by the RPF Amendment Act. Section 19 (2) of the RPF Amendment Act further clarifies that within 30 days of its commencement, an officer may exercise his option, by notice in writing to the Director General (DG), to revert to their parent cadre, if he is in the RPF on deputation, or, in any other case, to retire from service.

  2. It is strange that in the publications of the bare Act of the RPF Act, the aforementioned extensive amendments brought about by the RPF Amendment Act are not reflected even after more than three decades of their commencement.

  3. A direction is issued to the Respondents to ensure forthwith that both on the official websites of the Ministry of Law, Ministry of Railways, the RPF and elsewhere, the amendments made to the RPF Act by the RPF Amendment Act are clearly shown, if not already done. The Respondents will also write to all publishers of bare Acts to ensure that the amendments are reflected in their publications.

  4. The case of the Petitioner has been noticed by this Court in some detail in its order dated 1st April, 2019. The Court notes that while directing notice to issue in the petition on 27th August 2018, it had been made clear that any appointments to the post of DG, RPF would be subject to the outcome of the
    petition.

  5. The Court has been shown a copy of an order dated 29th September, 2018 issued by the Railway Board appointing Mr. Arun Kumar, IPS (UP: 85) as DG, RPF. It has been made clear therein that the said appointment is subject to the outcome of W.P.(C) 3455/2016 (stated to be pending before a Full Bench of this Court) as well as the present W.P.(C) 8963/2018.

  6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner points out that the Petitioner will
    superannuate on 30th April, 2020. Considering that if the Petitioner were to succeed in the present petition, it would directly and adversely affect Mr. Arun Kumar, who is currently functioning as the DG, RPF, the Court considers it appropriate, on the oral prayer of learned counsel for the Petitioner, to implead Mr. Arun Kumar, DG, RPF as Respondent No. 4 by name. The amended memo of parties be filed within one week. Notice be issued to the newly added Respondent No. 4. Dasti in addition. The notice will be served also through the RPF.

8. Listed on 26th February, 2020. Order dasti.

CORAM
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
TALWANT SINGH, J.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI, JANUARY 28, 2020.