This disposition concerns a retired officer's plea for notional promotion to Inspector General. The Court rejected the claim, holding that prior orders only entitled the petitioner to be deemed retired as Deputy Inspector General, covering all consequential benefits, and intended no further promotion.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~26
BHAG SINGH SAIN ..... Petitioner Through Mr. S. N. Kaul and Ms. Bushra Waseem, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Senior standing counsel with Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Advocates for Respondent/UOI
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
O R D E R % 13.11.2019
W.P.(C) 8545/2018 Page 1 of 7
DIG, SSB was held on 20th August, 1987. The Petitioner was not considered for such promotion and challenged that decision by filing Writ Petition No. 332/1988. The stand of the Respondents was that he was not eligible for such promotion as per the Recruitment Rules (RRs) of 1977 and 1982. On 4th July, 2008, the said writ petition was disposed of, directing the Respondents to hold a review DPC and consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of DIG. The said writ petition was in fact filed by the present Petitioner and one other Petitioner. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the said writ petition were J. S. Bisht and R. B. Saxena.
W.P.(C) 8545/2018 Page 2 of 7
with effect from the date of the original DPC held on 20th August, 1987.
“For the above reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion with effect the date his juniors were promoted. The respondents shall take immediate steps to convene the review DPC and consider the petitioner‟s record as it existed on 20.08.1987 when the first DPC was held. The result of the examination by way of promotion or otherwise should be communicated to the petitioner within four weeks from today. In case he is granted promotion, the respondents shall ensure that all such consequential benefits with effect from the date the petitioner‟s juniors were promoted is also afforded to him. Likewise, in such eventuality, the petitioner‟s pension order shall also be reviewed with appropriate adjustment given the recommendations of the 5th and 6th Pay Commissions which would result in upward revision of pension. Time for compliance with regard to the consequential orders is eight (8) weeks from today.”
“Present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of order dated 15th September, 2015 passed by this court in W.P(C) No. 6993/2013.
Today in Court, Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General has handed over a photocopy of the office order dated 2nd February, 2017 by virtue of which petitioner has been promoted to
W.P.(C) 8545/2018 Page 3 of 7
the rank of Deputy Inspector General in the pay scale of Rs. 5100150-5400-150-6150/- with effect from the date of promotion of Shri J. S. Bisht and Shri R. B. Saxena, both Area Organisers, i.e., 1st December, 1987, which is taken on record. The said order further states that the petitioner shall be entitled for pay and pension as well as arrears of pension from the date of his retirement.
Mr. Sanjay Jain clarifies that the order in question has been passed on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the government has directed that it should not have been treated as a precedent.
Since learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed an apprehension that the order only directs payment of arrears of pension from the date of petitioner‟s retirement, it is clarified that the petitioner shall also be entitled for arrears of pay from the date of his promotion, i.e., 1st December, 1987 till the date of his retirement.
Consequently, keeping in view the order dated 2nd February, 2017 as well as the aforesaid clarification, present contempt petition is disposed of as satisfied.
This Court places on record its appreciation for the services rendered by learned Additional Solicitor General in the present matter.”
W.P.(C) 8545/2018 Page 4 of 7
“Shri Bhag Singh Sain was promoted to the rank of DIG in compliance to Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi order dated 15.09.2015 as a special case on court‟s direction though the vacancy was not meant for Commandant stream. The Supreme Court vide its judgment has also held that this order shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case.
Since, Shri Bhag Singh Sain, Ex-DIG was promoted to the rank of DIG only to execute the order of Hon‟ble Courts as a special case, as such, the claim for being senior to Shri O. P. Chaturvedi on the basis of promotion to the rank of DIG could not be sustained/established as Shri O. P. Chaturvedi was not superseded by Shri Bhag Singh Sain. Moreover, in the court cases filed till date, Shri Bhag Singh Sain has never impleaded Shri O. P. Chaturvedi as a respondent nor ever claimed that he was senior to Shri O. P. Chaturvedi.
In view of the facts established above, the request for promotion of Shri Bhag Singh Sain, Ex-DIG to the rank of IG w.e.f. 17.08.1995 i.e. after superannuation cannot be acceded to.”
W.P.(C) 8545/2018 Page 5 of 7
would include considering the Petitioner for promotion from the post of DIG to IG as well.
W.P.(C) 8545/2018 Page 6 of 7
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
TALWANT SINGH, J.
NOVEMBER 13, 2019 mw
W.P.(C) 8545/2018
Page 7 of 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the expression "all such consequential benefits" in a previous order includes consideration for promotion from Deputy Inspector General to Inspector General.
Whether the Petitioner is eligible for notional promotion as Inspector General beyond the date of his notional retirement as Deputy Inspector General.
BHAG SINGH SAIN
UNION OF INDIA
S. MURALIDHAR
TALWANT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
