Service Law – Promotion to the rank of Inspector General of Police – Claim of – The order of promotion was granted to the appellant to the rank of IG until he was reverted to the rank of DIG – The order of reversion was stayed by the High Court – Thereafter, both Single Judge and, in appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court rejected the plea of the appellant to substantive promotion to the rank of IG – The Supreme Court directed maintenance of status quo – The appellant continued to work as an IG rank officer until the date of his superannuation – The appellant sought retiral benefits as an IG rank officer and also sought liberty to pursue his remedies for promotion to the post of Additional DGP – Held: In exercise of jurisdiction u/Art. 142, the retiral dues of the appellant be computed and released on the basis that he has retired from service in the substantive rank of an IG – However, having perused the record, particularly the report of the Medical Board which was constituted finally in pursuance of the directions of the High Court, no further directions for the consideration of the case of appellant to the rank of Additional DGP to be issued – The appellant’s claim for promotion as Additional DGP is in consequence not accepted. Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellant continued to work, pursuant to the order of promotion that was granted to him to the rank of IG until he was reverted to the rank of DIG. The order of reversion was passed without the issuance of a notice to show cause and without furnishing any opportunity of being heard to the appellant. During the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court, the order of reversion was stayed. Then again, when the proceedings came before this Court upon the dismissal of the Writ Petition as well as the Letters Patent Appeal, this Court directed the maintenance of status quo. The appellant, as a result of the interim order passed by this Court, continued to work as an IG rank officer until the date of his superannuation. He did so for a period of nearly four years. [Para 8][1028-E-G]
2. Having regard to the above factual position, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would require a direction by this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, that the retiral dues of the appellant be computed and released on the basis that he has retired from service in the substantive rank of an IG. However, having perused the record, particularly the report of the Medical Board which was constituted finally in pursuance of the directions of the High Court, this Court is not inclined to issue any further directions for the consideration of the case of the appellant to the rank of Additional DGP and this Court is of the view that the matter must rest there. The appellant’s claim for promotion as Additional DGP is in consequence not accepted. [Para 9][1028-G-H; 1029-A-B]
3. Direction that the retiral dues of the appellant shall be computed and released to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order on the basis of the position that he retired as an IG on 31 January 2016. The sealed cover shall, in consequence, be returned to the respondents. The appellant shall have no further claim for promotion as an Additional DGP. [Para 10][1029-C]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.