Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2184 (PNJ)

R. L. Sarangal v. Union Of India

2009-12-16

HEMANT GUPTA, JORA SINGH

body2009
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 20.3.1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, whereby an original application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The petitioner is a direct recruit to the Indian Police Service with year of allotment as 1960. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 18.1.1993 whereby representation of the petitioner for claiming promotion as Deputy Inspector General of Police scale from the deemed date as was granted to Shri Harjeet Singh and Shri B.R. Kapur, (for short `promotee officers), was declined. 3. The promotee officers were assigned 1963 as year of allotment by the Government of India vide communication dated 11.1.1971. Aggrieved against the said allotment, writ petitions were filed before this Court by the promotee officers. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions on 16.7.1973 and directed the authorities to grant year of allotment from the date of continuous officiation in the cadre of the senior posts. Letters Patent Appeals were filed before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench allowed appeals on 17.5.1975 with a direction to the Central Government to re-decide the question of assignment of the year of allotment in the light of the observations made in the judgment. 4. Shri Harjeet Singh and Shri B.R. Kapur filed Civil Appeals before Honble Supreme Court. Petitioner also filed a writ petition before Honble Supreme Court. Vide judgment dated 11.4.1980 reported as Harjeet Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1275, appeals were allowed. The judgment of Division Bench was set aside and that of learned Single Judge was restored. Writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the vires of Rule 3(3)(b) of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954, and Rule 3 of the All India Services (Conditions of Service Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960, was dismissed. As a consequence of the order passed in civil appeals, the promotee officers have been assigned year of allotment as 1960; promoted as DIG w.e.f. 25.9.1980 as a result of refixation of seniority and were given deemed date of promotions with consequential benefits. 5. Representation submitted by the petitioner and 7 other officers was rejected by the Government of India vide communication dated 27.7.1981 against the 1960 as year of allotment. 5. Representation submitted by the petitioner and 7 other officers was rejected by the Government of India vide communication dated 27.7.1981 against the 1960 as year of allotment. In the revised gradation list as on 1.1.1982, the promotee officers were shown senior to the petitioner. It may be noticed that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation in the year 1989 and that he has invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in the year 1993. 6. Petitioner has challenged the vires of Rule 3(3)(b) of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 in the writ petition before the Honble Supreme Court. Such challenge was negated by the Supreme Court in its order dated 11.4.1980. Shri B.R. Kapur and Shri Harjeet Singh have been given year of allotment in terms of the order passed by Honble Supreme Court after challenge to the Rules at the instance of the petitioner was negated. Since action has been taken in terms of the order passed by Honble Supreme Court, therefore, challenge to the order granting promotion to Shri Harjeet Singh and Shri B.R. Kapur cannot be permitted to be disputed by the petitioner, moreso after 4 years of his retirement; 12 years after his representation was declined and after 13 years of granting such benefit to the promotee officers. 7. Consequently, we do not find any illegality or material infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.