IMPORTANT POINT
It is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surplussage, if they can have appropriate application in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute.

Headnote:Service Law – Special Police Establishment (Executive Staff) Recruitment Rules, 1963 – Respondent – joined U. P. Police Service as Sub–Inspector and was sent on deputation to the Central Bureau of Investigation as Sub–Inspector – While he was on deputation, he was appointed to the post of Inspector against deputation quota as per the then existing ‘Rules, 1963’ – He continued to be on deputation with CBI and vide Order dated November 24, 1977, he was appointed to the post of Dy. S.P. – Respondent, made representation and claimed his seniority with effect from November 24, 1977 when he was initially appointed to the post of Dy.S.P. in CBI-Tribunal dismissed original application filed by respondent. – Review application – Dismissed – Writ petition –Allowed by High Court – Appeal against judgment of High Court whereby writ petition preferred by respondent was allowed and it was directed that his seniority to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.) should be counted from November 24, 1977 in place of June 29, 1987 –. It is true that respondent was appointed as Dy.S.P. on officiating basis by CBI in 1977 and he continued as such until his absorption in 1987 –However said period could not be taken into account for considering his seniority – This was because sub–para (iv) of Office Memorandum plainly provided that date of absorption, ordinarily, would be the date from which seniority in the grade was to be reckoned- In the instant case, no departure from the aforesaid position was possible as the respondent was not holding the post of Dy.S.P. or equivalent post in his parent department anytime prior to his absorption. – Initial appointment of respondent as Dy.S.P. was purely on ad–hoc basis and there was nothing to indicate that his selection was according to Rules-As a matter of fact, the respondent could have been absorbed only after receipt of recommendation from UPSC – Thus, the period during which the respondent worked as Dy.S.P. in CBI on officiating basis prior to his absorption, could not be counted – No infirmity found in the finding of Tribunal – Impugned judgment set aside – Appeal allowed. (Paras 17, 18)
       Facts of the Case :
        Respondent-joined U. P. Police Service as Sub-Inspector and was sent on deputation to the Central Bureau of Investigation as Sub-Inspector herein in the instant case. While he was on deputation, he was appointed to the post of Inspector against deputation quota as per the then existing ‘Rules, 1963’. He continued to be on deputation with CBI and vide Order dated November 24, 1977, he was appointed to the post of Dy. S.P. Respondent, made representation and claimed his seniority with effect from November 24, 1977 whenhe was initially appointed to the post of Dy.S.P. in CBI.Tribunal dismissed original application filed by respondent.. Review application filed thereagainst was dismissed . Writ petition thereagainst was allowed by High Court.
        2. Present Appeal has been filed against judgment of High Court whereby writ petition preferred by respondent was allowed and it was directed that his seniority to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.) should be counted from November 24, 1977 in place of June 29, 1987.
       Findings of the Court :
        It is true that respondent was appointed as Dy.S.P.on officiating basis by CBI in 1977 and he continued as such until his absorption in 1987.However said period could not be taken into account for considering his seniority. This was because sub-para (iv) of Office Memorandum plainly provided that date of absorption, ordinarily, would be the date from which seniority in the grade was to be reckoned. In the instant case, no departure from the aforesaid position was possible as the respondent was not holding the post of Dy.S.P.or equivalent post in his parent department anytime prior to his absorption. Initial appointment of respondent as Dy.S.P. was purely on ad-hoc basis and there was nothing to indicate that his selection was according to Rules. As a matter of fact, the respondent could have been absorbed only after receipt of recommendation from UPSC.Thus, the period during which the respondent worked as Dy.S.P. in CBI on officiating basis prior to his absorption, could not be counted. No infirmity was found in the finding of Tribunal. Impugned judgment was set aside. Appeal was allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. versus Shri D.P. Singh:

Case Citation and Details: The case is Civil Appeal No. 1485 of 2003, decided by the Supreme Court of India on 16-12-2009, involving the Director, CBI as the Appellant and Shri D.P. Singh as the Respondent. (!) (!)
Subject Matter: The core issue concerns Employment Law, specifically Seniority calculations under the Service Law, particularly the Special Police Establishment (Executive Staff) Recruitment Rules, 1963. (!) (!)
Factual Background: The Respondent joined the U.P. Police Service as a Sub-Inspector in 1964 and was sent on deputation to the CBI in 1966. While on deputation, he was appointed to the post of Inspector in 1970 and then appointed to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.) on an ad-hoc/officiating basis on November 24, 1977. (!) (!) (!)
Absorption and Dispute: Although the Respondent exercised his option for absorption in 1980 and the request was accepted in 1983, the formal absorption order was only issued on May 15, 1995, with effect from June 29, 1987. The Respondent claimed seniority in the grade of Dy.S.P. from November 24, 1977, whereas the authorities counted it from the date of absorption, June 29, 1987. (!) (!)
Lower Court Proceedings: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed the Respondent's original application and review application. The High Court of Delhi allowed a writ petition filed by the Respondent, directing that his seniority be counted from November 24, 1977. (!) (!)
Legal Provision Involved: The primary legal instrument under consideration is the Office Memorandum dated May 29, 1986, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT), specifically sub-para (iv) of para 7 regarding the seniority of persons absorbed after being on deputation. (!) (!) (!)
Content of the Office Memorandum: The Memorandum states that normally, seniority for a deputationist absorbed later is counted from the date of absorption. However, if the officer was already holding the same or equivalent grade on a regular basis in their parent department on the date of absorption, seniority may be counted from the date of deputation to that grade or the date of regular appointment in the parent department, whichever is later. (!) (!) (!)
Applicability to the Case: The Court held that the exception in the Memorandum does not apply because the Respondent was not holding the post of Dy.S.P. or an equivalent grade on a regular basis in his parent department (U.P. Police) at the time of his absorption. His appointment in CBI was purely ad-hoc/officiating. (!) (!) (!)
Statutory Construction Principle: The Court emphasized that it is not a sound principle of construction to treat words in a statute as surplussage if they can have appropriate application. The first part of sub-para (iv) ("normally be counted from the date of absorption") must be given effect, distinguishing it from cases where the officer holds the grade regularly in the parent department. (!)
Precedents: The Court distinguished the case from K. Madhavan and Another v. Union of India, noting that while service is not wiped out by transfer, the principle applies only if the officer held the specific grade regularly in the parent department, which was not the case here. (!) (!)
Tribunal's Finding: The Tribunal correctly observed that as long as the applicant could claim no lien on the post of Dy.S.P. in CBI, he could not claim seniority there; the earlier lien with U.P. Police ceased upon absorption. (!)
Judgment: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and held that the Respondent's seniority in the grade of Dy.S.P. must be counted from the date of absorption, i.e., June 29, 1987. (!) (!)

JUDGEMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.—

This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated March 8, 2002 whereby writ petition preferred by the present respondent was allowed and it was directed that his seniority to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.) should be counted from November 24, 1977 in place of June 29, 1987.

2. D. P. Singh-respondent-joined U. P. Police Service on February 16, 1964 as Sub-Inspector. On May 11, 1966, he was sent on deputation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as Sub-Inspector. While he was on deputation, he was appointed to the post of Inspector on December 31, 1970 against deputation quota as per the then existing Special Police Establishment (Executive Staff) Recruitment Rules, 1963 (for short, ‘Rules, 1963’). He continued to be on deputation with CBI and vide Order dated November 24, 1977, he was appointed to the post of Dy. S.P. on ad-hoc basis. He appears to have exercised his option for absorption to the post of Dy.S.P. in CBI in 1980 and the request for absorption also seems to have been accepted in 1983 but no formal order was issued and it was only vide order dated May 15, 1995 that respondent was absorbed in the service of CBI and appointed as Dy.S.P. on transfer basis with effect from June 29, 1987 on the recommendation of Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and as per the guidelines issued by Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) vide Office Memorandum dated May 29, 1986. The respondent, however, made representation and claimed his seniority with effect from November 24, 1977 when he was initially appointed to the post of Dy.S.P. in CBI. No favorable response on his representation was received by the respondent. He, then, approached Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi by filing original application praying therein that direction be issued to the present appellants to fix his seniority in the grade of Dy.S.P. with effect from November 24, 1977 in place of June 29, 1987.

3. On February 3, 1998, CAT dismissed original application filed by the present respondent. The respondent sought review of the order dated February 3, 1998 from the CAT but the review application, too, was dismissed on September 10, 1999.

4. The present respondent aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of CAT, filed writ petition before the High Court which, as indicated above, has been allowed by the impugned order.

5. We heard Mr. P.P. Malhotra, Additional Solicitor General for the appellants and Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, Senior Counsel for the respondent at quite some length.

6. It is important to notice here that although respondent joined CBI as Sub-Inspector on May 11, 1966 on deputation from U.P. Police and he continued to be on deputation for more than two decades and during this period he was appointed by CBI on next higher posts, viz; Inspector and Dy.S.P. but until his absorption as Dy.S.P. in CBI with effect from June 29, 1987, he continued his lien in the parent department and was not promoted to the post of Dy.S.P. in U.P. Police (i.e. his parent department).

7. In this backdrop, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the order dated December 26, 1977 whereby the respondent was appointed to officiate as Dy.S.P. with effect from November 24, 1977.

“F.No.A-19036/11/77-Ad.V Govt. of India Ministry of Home Affairs, Deptt. of Personnel & A.R., Central Bureau of Investigation Kotah House Hutments, New Delhi. Dated 26 Dec 1977 NOTIFICATION (TO BE PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE OF INDIA PART III SEC.I) The director, Central Bureau of Investigation and Inspector General of Police, Special Police Establishment hereby appoints Shri D.P. Singh, Inspector of Police, C.B.I. CIU (II), Branch and an officer of Uttar Pradesh Police Deptt. to officiate as Dy. Supdt. of Police in Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Police Establishment with effect from the forenoon of 24.11.77 in a temporary capacity until further order. (V.P...............) Admini

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1848

2009(8) Supreme 217SUPREME COURT OF INDIAThe Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. — AppellantsversusShri D.P. Singh — RespondentCivil Appeal No. 1485 of 2003Decided on : 16-12-2009

IMPORTANT POINT It is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surplussage, if they can have appropriate application in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute.

Cases Referred (8)

2009(8) Supreme 217
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. — Appellants
versus
Shri D.P. Singh — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1485 of 2003
Decided on : 16-12-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
It is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surplussage, if they can have appropriate application in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute.