Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 337 (JK)

Union of India v. Ashok Kalra

2017-07-17

ALOK ARADHE, SANJEEV KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 26th April, 2012 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (in brevity, the CAT), by which the original application preferred by the respondents was allowed and the petitioners herein were directed to re-fix the seniority of the respondent on the post of Sub-Inspector and thereafter to fix his seniority on the post of Inspector. In order to appreciate the petitioners’ challenge to the impugned order, few facts need mention, which are stated infra. 2. The respondent joined Delhi Police as Sub-Inspector on 13th December, 1991. He submitted an application for going on deputation on the post of Sub-Inspector in Central Bureau of Investigation (in brevity, the CBI). The application submitted by the respondent was allowed and he was sent on deputation to CBI and he joined the CBI as Sub-Inspector on 07th July, 1995. While on deputation, he was promoted on the post of Inspector vide order dated 28th January, 1998. In response to the Circular issued by the CBI, the respondent submitted his willingness for absorption in the CBI on the post of Inspector. Accordingly, the respondent was absorbed as Inspector, w.e.f., 31st August, 2000. However, in the seniority list of Inspector of Police circulated on 12th September, 2003, the position of the respondent in the gradation list was shown by not taking into account his previous services rendered by him as Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police. Thereupon, the respondent submitted a representation, which was rejected. Thereafter, he filed an original application, namely, OA No. 649/JK/2007, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation, which may be submitted by the respondent with regard to his claim. 3. In pursuance of the order passed by the CBI, the respondent submitted a representation, which was rejected on 21st October, 2009. The aforesaid order was the subject matter of challenge in OA No. 970/JK/2010, which has been allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) vide order dated 26th April, 2012. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the respondent was not entitled to get his past services as Sub-Inspector, counted towards his seniority, once he was absorbed in CBI on a higher post of Inspector. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the respondent was not entitled to get his past services as Sub-Inspector, counted towards his seniority, once he was absorbed in CBI on a higher post of Inspector. It is further submitted that the petitioners accepted his absorption on the post of Inspector without any objection/demur and, therefore, subsequently, he cannot be permitted to raise an issue that past services rendered by him on the post of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police should be counted for the purposes of seniority in CBI. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the CAT and has submitted that on absorption that since the services of the respondent were absorbed in CBI, therefore, he is entitled to seek the benefit of counting of seniority on the post of Sub-Inspector rendered by him in Delhi Police. 6. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. On admitted facts, the question which arises for consideration is whether respondent No. 1 is entitled to get his past services as Sub-Inspector counted towards seniority once he was absorbed in CBI on the higher post of Inspector. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 held the substantive post of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police and was sent on deputation to CBI on the post of Sub-Inspector, w.e.f., 07th July, 1995. Thereafter, he was promoted as Inspector of Police in CBI on deputation basis, w.e.f., 09th February, 1998. The respondent’s consent was sought for absorption as Inspector in substantive capacity. Thereupon, the respondent’s services were absorbed, w.e.f., 31st August, 2000, i.e., the date when he was absorbed and the aforesaid exercise was undertaken in terms of Circular issued by DOPT vide Office Memorandum dated 27th February, 2001. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent cannot claim the benefit of counting of seniority on the post of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police, as the same is not equivalent to the post of Inspector in CBI. Once the respondent was absorbed on the post of Inspector without any objection or demur on his part, his past services rendered on the post of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police cannot be counted, as admittedly he was absorbed on higher post of Inspector. Once the respondent was absorbed on the post of Inspector without any objection or demur on his part, his past services rendered on the post of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police cannot be counted, as admittedly he was absorbed on higher post of Inspector. However, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter. 7. In view of the preceding analysis, in our considered opinion, the order passed by the CAT suffers from the errors apparent on the basis of record and cannot sustain the eye of law. The same is hereby quashed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed.