IMPORTANT POINTS
Integration policy should have nexus to the injustice sought to be removed so as to balance equity.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 309 – State has legislative competence to enact laws retrospectively – Only rider is that the date of retrospective operation should have relevance and nexus with the object sought to be achieved – Further, it should not affect accrued rights. (Para 11)
       (1983) 2 SCC 33; (1980) Suppl. SCC 524 – Relied upon
       (b) Service Law – Integration of cadres – Seniority – Equation of post in a cadre – Does not necessarily mean that the common seniority list should be prepared in that cadre for promotion to the next higher cadre. (Para 16)
       (c) Service Law – Integration – Seniority – Promotion – Sikkim Police having three services – Direct recruitment at the entry level of sub-Inspector in one – In the rest by promotion – Due to accelerated promotion in one of the services, chances of members of other services to reach level of DSP becoming less – State integrating the cadres – Deciding to fix seniority on the basis of date of becoming sub-Inspector – Giving notional promotions to concerned persons – Policy having nexus to the injustice sought to be removed so as to balance equity – Not affecting any right accrued to third party – Neither irrational nor arbitrary. (Para 27)
       (1980) 3 SCC 97; (2007) 10 SCC 684; (2001) 3 SCC 521; 1988 Supp SCC 1; (1996) 8 SCC 407; (1988) 1 SCC 311; (1976) 4 SCC 838; (1982) 1 SCC 379; (2003) 11 SCC 614; (1997) 8 SCC 522 – Relied upon
       (d) Sikkim Police Force (Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority) Rules, 2000 – Rule 9(1) – Principle of fixation of seniority was already there in Rule 9(1) – Amendment merely clarificatory in nature – Therefore deemed to exist from the original date of commencement of the Rule in 2000. (Para 28)
       Facts of the case:
       The Sikkim Police force had three wings. A need for integration of the three wings was felt. It was effected on recommendations of the Das Commission. As a result, retrospective promotion were notionally granted to many sub-Inspectors.
       The writ petitioner joined Sikkim Police as a Constable on 12.08.1974. He was absorbed in the Sikkim Vigilance Police on 12.09.1978. He was promoted as sub-inspector on 22.12.1986 and was further promoted as inspector on 26.09.1995. On account of the retrospective promotion granted to the members of the Sikkim Police Force based on the date of appointment/promotion as sub-inspector in the case of the other two services, the writ petitioner became junior to them, affecting his chances of promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. His petition was allowed by the High Court.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

JUDGMENT :

KURIAN JOSEPH, J. –

1. Leave granted.

2. Integration of services means the creation of a homogenous service by the amalgamation or merger of service personnel belonging to separate services. Integration is a policy matter as far as the State is concerned. In evolving a proper coalescence of the services, there are various steps:

(i) Decide the principles on the basis of which integration of services has to be effected;

(ii) Examine the facts relating to each category and class of post with reference to the principle of equivalence;

(iii) Fix the equitable basis for the preparation of common seniority list of personnel holding posts which are merged into one category.

The State is bound to ensure a fair and equitable treatment to officers in various categories/cadres of services while preparing the common seniority list. Being a complicated process, integration is likely to result in individual bruises which are required to be minimised and if not possible, to be ignored. These first principles on integration are to be borne in mind whenever a dispute on integration is addressed.

SHORT HISTORY

3. Prior to the constitution of integrated Sikkim Police Force w.e.f. 11.09.2000 as per the Sikkim Police Force (Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority) Rules, 2000, there were three different services, viz.,

(1) Sikkim Police Force,

(2) Sikkim Armed Police Force and

(3) Sikkim Vigilance Police. All the three forces were governed by separate service rules.

There is entry level of constable in all the three forces. The Sikkim Vigilance and Sikkim Armed Forces ended with the cadre of inspector. In the case of Sikkim Armed Police there was also 50% direct recruitment at the level of sub-inspector. Promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was available only to the Sikkim Police Force. The posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police in Sikkim Vigilance Police and Sikkim Armed Police were filled up only by deputation. The personnel belonging to the Sikkim Vigilance Police and Sikkim Armed Police had been raising their grievances with regard to lack of promotion beyond inspector of police at various levels.

The matter reached the High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 513 of 1998. Realising the heartburn, the State Government appointed Justice N. G. Das, a former Judge of the High Court of Sikkim as one man Commission for examining the scope of integration of different services. Implementing the recommendations of the Commission, the State Government framed the Sikkim Police Force (Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority) Rules, 2000 under Article 309 of the Constitution of India consisting of posts upto inspector in all the three forces. For the purpose of ready reference, we shall extract Rule 4 of 2000 Rules on constitution of the forces:

"4. Constitution of the Force: The Force shall consist of the following, namely:-

(a) Persons holding the posts upto and including Inspectors under Schedule I of the Sikkim Police Force (Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority) Rules, 1981.

(b) Persons holding the posts of Constable, Head Constable, Assistant sub-Inspector, Sub-Inspector and Inspector under the Sikkim Vigilance Police Force (Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority) Rules, 1981. (c) Persons holding the posts of Sub-Inspector and Inspector under the Sikkim Armed Police (Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority) Rules, 1989.

(d) Persons recruited to the Force in accordance with the provisions of these rules."

4. On seniority, Rule 9 provided that the same would be determined by the order of merit in which they are selected for recruitment. To quote:

"9. Seniority

(i) The relative seniority of the members of the force recruited directly, shall be determined by the order of merit in which they are selected for such recruitment. Members as a result of an earlier selection shall be senior to those recruited as a result of a subsequent selection.

(ii) The relative seniority of persons promoted from a lower post shall be on the basis of seniority-cum-merit subject t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 115

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAH. L. GOKHALE, KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.STATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS – APPELLANTSVERSUSADUP TSHERING BHUTIA AND OTHERS – RESPONDENTSCIVIL APPEAL NO. 2446 /2014 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 9409/2013]Decided On : 18-02-2014

IMPORTANT POINTSIntegration policy should have nexus to the injustice sought to be removed so as to balance equity.

Cases Referred (9)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H. L. GOKHALE, KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.
STATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
ADUP TSHERING BHUTIA AND OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2446 /2014 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 9409/2013]
Decided On : 18-02-2014

IMPORTANT POINTS
Integration policy should have nexus to the injustice sought to be removed so as to balance equity.