Retired officers wrongfully denied timely promotion due to administrative delays are entitled to retrospective appointment and consequential benefits.

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -

a) “Allow the instant application of the applicants along with costs;

b) Direct the respondents to appoint the applicants into Indian Police Service in accordance with the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules , 1954 read with Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations , 1955, by operating the select list prepared by the Selection Committee for the year 2010, 2011 and 2012;

c) Direct the respondents to fix the seniority of the applicants by appropriately providing for the year of allotment of the applicants as 2006 (in case of applicants No.1 to 3), 2007 (in case of applicant No.4) and 2009 (in case of applicant No.5) in accordance with the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules , 1988 as they stood applicable for the year 2010, 2011 and Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Amendment Rules, 2012 applicable for the year 2012;

d) Direct the respondents to further grant the consequential benefits of promotion to the applicants after fixing their seniority w.e.f. 2006, 2007 and 2009 to the next higher post till the date of retirement of the applicants;

e) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicants and against the respondents.”

2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicants in their pleadings, are as follows: -

a) The applicants, who are citizens of India and domiciles of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, were promoted to the Jammu and Kashmir Police Gazetted Service as Deputy Superintendents of Police (Dy.SP) and subsequently elevated to the rank of Superintendent of Police (SP), before ultimately retiring from service. Except for Applicant No.1, who retired at the age of 58 years, the remaining applicants retired after attaining the age of 60 years.

b) Prior to the reorganization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir into Union Territories on 31.10.2019, the Jammu and Kashmir cadre had a dedicated Indian Police Service (IPS) cadre. The applicants, by virtue of their substantive service in the Jammu and Kashmir Police Gazetted Service, were eligible for appointment to the IPS by promotion under the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules , 1954 read with the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations , 1955. These rules provided for appointments to the IPS through two modes: direct recruitment and promotion, in a 50:50 ratio for the Jammu and Kashmir Cadre until 31.12.2010.

c) The applicants herein, after meeting the eligibility criteria for promotion into the IPS in the respective years of 2003, 2005, and 2006, were not considered due to administrative delays. In 2010, Applicants No.1 to 3 entered the consideration zone, while Applicants No.4 and 5 entered the zone in 2011. However, no Selection Committee meeting was convened in 2010 or 2011, despite the completion of service particulars and vigilance clearances for these applicants.

d) The delay was largely attributed to pending litigation before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir regarding the finalization of the seniority list of Dy.SPs. Following a judgment in Anita Sharma & Ors. vs. State of J&K and Ors. dated 22.12.2011, the respondents were directed to finalize the seniority list by 09.02.2012. Despite this, no committee meeting was held for over nine years.

e) When the Selection Committee finally convened in 2021, the applicants were recommended for promotion to the IPS against the vacancies for the years 2010, 2011, and 2012. Applicants No.1 to 3 were recommended for the year 2010, Applicant No.4 for the year 2011, and Applicant No.5 for the year 2012. However, despite this recommendation, no appointment orders were issued in their favor.

f) The applicants claim that the failure