Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1646
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJIV KHANNA & NAJMI WAZIRI, JJ.
UOI THR. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI – Petitioner
Versus
SUMAN PUSHKARNA & ORS. – Respondents
W.P. (C) 6309/2007
Decided On : 04-04-2016
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Addl. Standing Counsel Ms. Aastha Nigam, Adv.
Mr. H.S. Dahiya, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the service rendered by a government servant in an equivalent post in the parent department should be counted for seniority in the transferred post, and equivalence of posts is determined by factors beyond just pay scales.
Headnote:
Seniority Dispute - Delhi Police - Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, Rule 5(h), Rule 17 - The judgment discusses the inter se seniority dispute between direct recruits and deputationists from the BSF and CRPF absorbed as Sub Inspectors in Delhi Police. The court examines the equivalence of posts, the counting of past service, and the application of relevant legal provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a seniority dispute between direct recruits and deputationists from the BSF and CRPF absorbed as Sub Inspectors in Delhi Police. The dispute arose over the counting of past service for determining inter-se seniority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the service rendered by the deputationists in the parent department should be counted for computing their seniority in the absorbed post. The Supreme Court held that the posts of Sub-Inspectors held by the deputationists in the parent cadre were equivalent posts.
Issues: The main issue was whether the service rendered by the deputationists in the parent department could be counted for determining their seniority in the absorbed post.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that the service rendered by a government servant in an equivalent post in the parent department should be counted for seniority in the transferred post. The court also emphasized that equivalence of posts is not solely determined by pay scales but also by factors such as nature of duties, responsibilities, and minimum qualifications.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decision of the Tribunal to restore the seniority of the deputationists from the date of their regular appointment in the parent department and count their service for the purpose of seniority for promotion to the rank of Inspector.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
1. The Union of India and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi in this writ petition, impugn the order dated 06.03.2007, in O.A. No. 2769 of 2005, and the order dated 07.07.2007, in R.A. No. 69/2007) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench.
2. The factual matrix and the legal issue is not required to be examined in detail as these have been examined and decided by the Supreme Court in Sub Inspector Roop Lal and Another Vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Others (2000) 1 SCC 644. This decision decides inter se seniority dispute between the direct recruits and deputationists from the Border Security Force (BSF) and the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) who were absorbed as Sub Inspectors in Delhi Police in the cadre of Sub Inspector (Executive).
3. In 1985, to deal with the law and order situation and to strengthen the existing security and policing system in Delhi, twelve new police stations were set up. Recruitment to the posts to man these new police stations was important and required immediate attention. In the normal course, fresh/direct recruitment at different levels and training would have taken a long time. Accordingly, recruitment of suitable persons on deputation from the BSF and CRPF in the ranks of Inspector, Sub-Inspector, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Head Constable, Constable and Drivers, Head Constable and Constable was considered by writing letters to the Director Generals of the BSF and the CRPF. The Commissioner exercised his powers under Rule 5(h) of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 to make appointment(s) to all non-gazetted categories in both executive and ministerial cadres on deputation basis by drawing suitable persons from another central police organisation or force or any other State/Union Territory. Rule 17, enacted and enforced on 31.03.1983, further empowered the Commissioner of Police to sanction permanent absorption of the deputationists with their consent, and the consent of seniors and subordinate officials of the deputed official in the Delhi Police with the concurrence of the Head of Police Force from which the said official was deputed. Thereupon the deputationists so requisitioned were absorbed in the Delhi Police.
4. On absorption dispute arose, whether for the purpose of inter se seniority between the Sub Inspectors in the Delhi Police, service put in by the absorbed deputationists in the parent department could be counted. Counting of past service was objected to by the direct recruits and some others.
5. Antony Mathew and two other officers, who joined the Delhi Police from the BSF, moved O.A. NO. 470/1991 before the Central Administrative Tribunal positioning that their continuous officiation on substantive basis as Sub-Inspectors in the BSF should be counted for determining inter-se seniority. This application was allowed by the Tribunal and it was directed that the applicants should be accorded seniority in the Delhi Police taking the date of appointment as Sub-Inspectors in the BSF on substantive basis as the relevant date. The applicants were to be accorded benefits flowing from the said seniority.
6. The Delhi Police filed a review application urging a new ground that the post of Sub-Inspector in the BSF and that of Sub-Inspector in the Delhi Police were not equivalent because the pay scales of the posts were not identical. Hence, service in the parent department (i.e. the BSF) could not be counted for seniority in the transferred post. Review application was rejected by the Tribunal holding that equivalence of pay scales was not the sole and determinative factor for determining equivalency of posts.
7. Not satisfied, the Delhi Police filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the two orders, i.e., orders in O.A. 470/1991 and the review application, asserting that the ratio of K. Madhavan v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 566 was inapplicable as the post of Sub-Inspector held
