Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M.Ahmadi : K.Ramaswamy : M.M.Punchhi
Syed Khalid Rizvi: Krishna Behari Srivastava: Ramesh Prasad Singh
Versus
Union Of India: State Of U.P.: Union Of India
Case No. : 823 of 1989
Date of Decision : 11/20/92
Advocates Appeared: Ahmed Altaf : Chaphekar A.R. : Goel A.K. : Goel Manoj : Gupta R.K. : Gupta Rachna : Jain P.K. : Jain R.K. : Kalra Pankaj : Kapur P.C. : Mahajan V.C. : Maheshwari R.K. : Mishra Pradeep : Pal R.P.Singh : Parameswaran P. : Parmeshwaran P. : Rao C.V.Subba : Rao P.P. : Salve Harish N. : Sharma Abha R. : Sharma Surya Kant : Sharma T.C. : Shroff P.S. : Shroff S.A. : Shroff S.S. : Singh B.B. : Singh Devendra : Singh T.N. : Singh U.N. : Singh U.P. : Singh Vishwajit : Soni S. : Srivastava A.K. : Subhashini A. : Suri Sushma : Varma Ashish : Verma R.C. : Yadav V.
Constitution Of India,1950 - Articles 14, 16 - INDIAN POLICE SERVICE (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 - Promotion - Superintendents of Police - Officers should not be entitled to any future promotions on basis directions of tribunal superseding claims of direct recruits until they became eligible in their turn as per this judgment Registry is directed to return seniority lists produced by State government which would give notice to who were included in notional list of their inter se placement of respective years directing them to submit within a specified time their objections if any and State government would send list objections if made and all relevant record to UPSC marking copies thereof to central government central government would submit their comments to UPSC which would consider them and may accept or modify list as per record and would communicate to central government and State governments Thereafter central government would make necessary appointments recommendation–Held, Since is a matter of factual verification by State central government and UPSC this court cannot undertake to review their legality - Therefore handicap if any, suffered by for that limited period has now been made good and subject to further verification of the grievance if any is now redressed - special grade posts were created to pay scale of pay of cadre posts - It is seen that Cadre Rules central government in consultation with the State government creates the cadre posts and the State government merely recommends - State government cannot on its own create cadre posts and that is not the case on hand special grade posts enabled to remain as Deputy Superintendent of Police drawing pay equal to cadre posts but no other benefit and they did not cease to be Deputy Superintendent of Police as contended by Gupta - Court accordingly hold that majority members committed gravest of errors in holding that Explanation of Seniority Rules and relevant rules were deemed have been relaxed and directions given to central government to seniority are illegal However court that many have since been retired from service after working out notional promotion and monetary benefits as this court did not stay operation tribunals order Arrears paid should not be recovered from them and promotions already made to some of and now continuing in respective offices may not also be recalled since they have been working for some time past However continuing officers should not be entitled to any future promotions basis of directions of tribunal superseding claims of direct recruits until they became eligible in their turn as per this judgment Registry directed to return seniority lists produced by State government which would give notice who were included in notional list of their inter placement of respective directing them to submit within a specified time their objections if any and State government would send list objections if made and all relevant record UPSC marking copies thereof to central government – Order accordingly
Judgment
K. RAMASWAMY
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THIS bunch of 22 appeals and one writ petition raise the traditional tangle of inter se seniority between the Indian Police Service Direct 9 Recruits and U.P. State Police Service, Special Grade Deputy Superintendents of Police for short Promotees. It is not necessary to detail myriad facts in all the appeals but shortly stated the facts in Civil Appeal No. 823 of 1989 are sufficient to decide the controversy by a common judgment. The appellants were direct recruits of the years 1970 and 1973 into Indian Police Service and were allotted to U.P. cadre. Respondents 3 to 9, Triveni Kumar Joshi and others were appointed as Deputy Superintendents of Police between 12/07/1961 to Jul 7/07/1963 a in substantive capacity in State Service and were promoted between October 4, 197 3/06/1975 to perform the duties of the cadre posts of Superintendents of Police. They continued to occupy the said posts till they were included in the select-list (respondent 3 in 1977, respondents 4 to 9 in 1978 and were later appointed and confirmed in the Indian Police Service w.e.f. various date between 29/07/197 8/12/1980.
(3) WHEN the inter se seniority list was prepared and published on 24/04/1977 showing the respondents as juniors to the appellants, they represented to the government of India that since they had continuously officiated on the cadre posts without break from the respective dates of promotion, their entire continuous officiating period should be counted towards seniority in Indian Police Service. They requested to redetermine their seniority giving them years of allotment from the respective dates of continuous officiation dating back to 1968, 1969 and 1970 to respondents 3,4,5,6 and 7 to 9 respectively. The State government rejected their claim in 1980. Preceding thereto some of their senior promotees filed writ petition Nos. 4490-4499 of 1980 and 5128-29 of 1980 in this court uestioning the validity of Rule 3(3(b) and 2(g) of INDIAN POLICE SERVICE (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 for short Seniority Rules and Regulation 5 of INDIAN POLICE SERVICE (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 for short the Promotion Regulations claiming the same relief. A bench of three Judges of this court directed the central government to determine the year of allotment of each of the respondents in accordance with Rule 3(1 of the Seniority Rules and also the question as to whether they were entitled to the benefit of continuous officiation on the posts of Superintendent of Police under Rule 3(3(b) of the Seniority Rules in the light of the decisions in Union of India v. G.N. Tiwari Narender Chadha v. Union of India and other decisions interpreting the analogous provisions of the All India Services Act, 1951 and the relevant rules and regulations framed thereunder. After giving sufficient opportunity to the promotees and the direct recruits and considering the material, the central government by Order dated July I, 1986 fixed the seniority and had given them 1968, 1970 and 1972 as years of allotment respectively the details thereof do not bear relevance to disposal of the appeals. Challenging the correctness thereof Bhupinder Singh and others filed 0.A. No. 583 of 1986 in the central Administrative tribunal at Allahabad. When it came up before a bench of two members, the judicial member held that by operation of Explanation 1 to Rule 3(3(b) of the Seniority Rules, the promotees are entitled to get seniority from the date of inclusion of their names in the select-list. The officiation period has to be counted only from that date. The year of allotment under Rule 3(1 read with Rule 3(3(b) of the Seniority Rules should be drawn accordingly bringing on notional list for 1971, 1975 and 1976. The administrative member held that by conduct, the central government a must be deemed to have relaxed the requirement of Explanation 1 to Rule 3(3(b) of the Seniority Rules as the Stat
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
