IPS BALI vs HOME DEPARTMENT on 31 December 2024

O R D E R

Per Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder S Dogra, Member (J) The fact of the case in brief is that during the National Emergency in 1962, Govt. of India recruited about 10 thousand Emergency Commissioned Officers in the Indian Army for a specific period of 05 to 10 years. In order to rehabilitate these ECOs/SSCOs on their release from Army Service, specific concessional notifications were issued by the Central Govt. with instructions to all States and other employing agencies to make similar conditions available for employing such officers on their release. Accordingly J&K Govt. issued notification dated 18.5.1967 whereunder the applicant appeared for the combined competitive examination held by the State Public Service Commission in 1970 and qualified and got allotted to JKPS cadre against a reserved vacancy meant for Ex.ECOs and was appointed as Dy.SP along with 07 others vide appointment order dated 22.5.1974. His probationary period completed in 1976. In 1978 final seniority of Dy.SP was issued by the respondents No. 2 & 3 wherein temporary appointees were shown above the applicant and seven others. The applicant moved Hon’ble High Court in WP 207/1978 wherein Hon’ble High Court held that the applicant’s right post came into existence from the date his service was regularized and directed the respondents to fix the seniority of the applicant in the light of the observation made therein and given benefits including promotion etc. In compliance of this order, sanction 48

police officers including ad hoc appointees including the applicant as well as Dy. SP were confirmed. In 1992 seniority of 18 officers including the applicant was fixed and he was placed at Sl.No.3 and the two candidates placed above him were appointed in IPS cadre in 1992 and 1995. DPC met inn 9.4.1992 for the purpose of making promotion of Dy.SP to SP and the name of the applicant was included at Sl.No.9 in the list of 10 SPs who were to be promoted from SP to Selection Grade SP, but the applicant was left out saying that he would be promoted against anticipated vacancies as and when the same will be available. On 15.12.1992 six officers including respondents No. 4, 5 & 6 who were junior to the applicant, were appointed to the IPS and allocated Jammu & Kashmir cadre. It is mentioned here that the applicant was required to be shown as appointed in 1972 but was shown as 1974 i.e. junior to respondent No.4. In 1994 the applicant was transferred from Police Department to Tourism Department. Challenging the transfer order the applicant filed SWP 1547/1994 and the applicant was repatriated to Police Department. He was not assigned any duty and was suspended in 1995. Challenging the suspension order the applicant filed SWP 1021/1995 and his suspension from 28.7.1995 to 5.7.1996 was revoked and the applicant was treated as on duty instead of leave. The applicant filed SWP 1151/1995 seeking direction upon the respondents to consider the applicant as entitled to selection grade in the rank of SP out of the category of ‘Released Commissioned Officer” retrospectively from 10.9.1991 when officers considered along with him by the DPC were so granted. It was only after his retirement on 31.12.1996, the respondents vide order dated 17.6.1997 accorded sanction to the placement of the applicant in the Selection Grade as SSP retrospectively w.e.f. 6.1.1993 i.e. with effect from the date the applicant was initially considered for such promotion. The applicant has thus approached Hon’ble High Court in SWP 511/2011 which has been transferred to this Tribunal and re- numbered as TA 477 of 2022 seeking the following relief :

a) Certiorari quashing SRO-17, dated 10.1.2002, to the extent, the SRO discriminated those Ex-Emergency Commissioned Officers who after serving in the KPS/KAS cadre of the State retired before 23.9.1999 from those who were in service of the State Government on or after 23.9.1999 in the matter of recruitment in the State service.

b) Mandamus, commanding and directing the official respondents to give to the applicant the benefit of 09 years’ military service in terms of the proviso inserted by amendment, before “Explanation” in sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 5 of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by promotion) Regulations 1955.

c) Mandamus, commanding and directing the official respondents to implement notification dated 23.9.1999, issued by the Government of J&K, Department of Finance, by the medium of which amendment was made in the J&K Civil Services Regulations Volume I to the effect that a NOTE was inserted below Article 185 (D)(II), in the case of the applicant notwithstanding that the applicant had retired before 23.9.1999.

d) Mandamus, commanding and directing the official respondents to appoint/induct the applicant in the IPS cadre w.e.f. 1991 the year the applicant became eligible to be considered for induction in IPS as per the information received from the official respondents in November 2010 in reply to an RTI query of the applicant.

e) Mandamus, commanding and directing the official respondents to promote the applicant to higher ranks of DIG and IGP after inducting him in IPS Cadre, w.e.f. the date any of the private respondent was inducted as such.

f) Mandamus, commanding and directing the official respondents to fix the pension and other retiral benefits of the applicant after fixing his seniority on the basis of his appointment order, inducting him in the IPS cadre in 1991, effecting his promotion from the due date, to the higher ranks and pay to the applicant the arrears of salary and pension which became due to him .

Any other alternate relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, appropriate and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted, in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.

2. The respondents have filed their counter stating inter alia that the applicant retired from State Police Service of Jammu & Kashmir on 31.12.1996. the applicant was considered for the selection list of 1990-91. The number of State Police Officers that was determined to be included in the said select list was 11 and the applicant was placed at Sl. No.29. Moreover, based on his overall service records the applicant was assessed as ‘Good’ by the Selection Commission. Hence he was not included in the select list of 1990-91 due to lower grading and statutory limit on the size of the select list which was 11 only. The applicant was again considered for the select list of 1992. The number of State Police Officers that was determined to be included in the said select list was 09 and the applicant as placed at Sl. No. 12. Based on his overall service records the applicant was assessed as ‘Good’ by the Selection Committee and thus he was not included in the select list of the year 1992. Thereafter the name of the applicant does not appear in the zone of consideration for the select list of the year 1995.

It is submitted by the respondents that the prayer sought for by the applicant in the present TA pertains to the action of the State Government which is the sole custodian of service records of the State Police Service. The SPS officers of any state are considered for their induction into IPS in order of their seniority in the State Police Service. The applicant was considered among others in order of seniority in the State Police Service by the Selection Committee on 31.3.1991. As per the eligibility list of 1991, the applicant was considered at Sl. 29 whereas respondent No.4 was considered at Sl. NO. 28. Hence the contention of the applicant that respondent No.4 is his junior in the SPS is baseless. Moreover, seniority in the SPS alone does not determine inclusion of an officer in the select list. In the present case, even though the respondents No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 were placed below the applicant in the zone of consideration for the year 1991/1992, the names of respondents No. 5, 6, 7, & 9 were included in the select list of 1992 based on the overall assessment of their service records carried out by the Selection Committee. The respondents have also submitted that the recruitment against his promotion quota is a lengthy process wherein three agencies - State Government, Union Public Service Commission and the Central Government are involved. It is therefore submitted that the applicant has not made UPSC as a party in the present case and hence the case suffers from non-joinder of parties and is liable to be dismissed.

The respondents have therefore prayed for dismissal of the present TA being devoid of any merit.

3. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the materials available on record.

4. We have heard the rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. In the appointment order of the applicant, his position of seniority was fixed immediately below Javaid Ahmad Makhdoomi of the same batch. But the administration brought in number of promotes/ad hoc appointees and deputationists in between rendering the applicant far junior in the seniority list. For this the applicant approached Hon’ble High Court in SWP and thereafter he was promoted to the rank of Sr. SP retrospectively with all benefits. In the year 1991 and 1992, the applicant became due for induction into the IPS cadre while his juniors who were made senior to him by the respondents with the grading VERY GOOD in APRs for 1991 and 1992 got inducted in IPS cadre while the applicant was ignored during both the years. It was only after his retirement on 31.12.1996, the respondents vide order dated 17.6.1997 has accorded sanction to the placement of the applicant in the Selection Grade as SSP retrospectively w.e.f. 6.1.1993, the date when the applicant was initially considered for promotion. In the present TA the applicant has prayed for adding 09 years of Army Service with police service of 22 years and give him full pensionary benefits. Secondly, he has prayed for induction into IPS cadre w.e.f. 1991 and 1992 and pay him consequential benefits and further promotion, if eligible.

5. In the facts and circumstances, we allow the TA with a direction to the respondents to re-consider the case of the applicant positively by giving him benefit of 09 years’ military service and if found eligible, to make consequential benefits/payments to the applicant. The entire exercise be completed within 03 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)

MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

Indrani/PPS