M.P.SINGH BARGOTI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
AA, CIVIL APPEAL NO.3906 OF 2009 Judgment Date: Nov 27, 2014
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3906 OF 2009
M.P. Singh Bargoti .....Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. .....Respondents
J U D G M E N T
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.
This appeal is directed against final judgment and order dated 15.10.2007
passed in Writ Petition No.4449 of 2001 whereby the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh dismissed the writ petition of the appellant and declined to
interfere with order of the M.P. Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 26.02.2001 passed in O.A.No.1122 of
2000.
The simple case of the appellant is that he has been deprived of benefits
of timely consideration and promotion from the post of Inspector to the
post of Deputy Superintendent of Police although there was a direction of
the Tribunal in cases filed by others and disposed of on 15.06.1993 and
03.11.1997 and also in a case filed by the appellant along with 29 others
bearing O.A. No.893 of 1997 allowed on 11.03.1998 for preparation of a
Combined Gradation List for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent
of Police and to include in it the names of all who were petitioners before
the Tribunal.
Since the order of the Tribunal dated 11.03.1998 was not challenged by any
one and attained finality, the case of the appellant deserves to be
considered on the basis of facts noted in paragraph 1 of that order and the
relief granted in paragraphs 8 and 9 of that order. They are as follows :
"The applicants in this case are inspectors in the Finger Print Branch of
the Police Department, which is an executive Branch of the said department.
The applicants have averred that for promotion to the next higher post of
Deputy Superintendent of Police the respondents have from time to time
issued a combined gradation list of inspectors of the executive branches of
the department. The applicants' contention is that the combined gradation
list issued for the year 1996 does not include their names in it. In this
connection they have submitted that all the persons belonging to the finger
print branch have not been included in the combined gradation list. The
applicants' contention is that the non-inclusion of their names in the
combined gradation list is in violation of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh
Police (Gazetted Officers) Recruitment Rules 1987 - '1987 Rules' for short
- and also the directions of the Tribunal given in order dated 15.6.1993
passed in O.A.No.93/92 placed at Annexure A-1, as also order dated
3.11.1997 passed in O.A.No.834/93. The applicants' submission is that
meeting of the departmental promotion committee is going to be held shortly
on the basis of a combined gradation list excluding their names and they
will therefore, thus be deprived of consideration for promotion illegally.
The applicants have, therefore, prayed for a direction to the respondents
to include their names as also names of other inspectors of the Finger
Print Branch in the combined gradation list of inspectors of the executive
branches and to consider the cases of their promotions on the basis of such
a combined gradation list. By way of interim relief it was directed by the
Tribunal that the meeting of the departmental promotion committee for
considering promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police may be
held but no orders promoting anyone out of the select list so prepared
shall be issued till the disposal of this case.
.... .... .... ....
.... .... .... ....
8. In view of the above discussion the petition deserves to be allowed.
The applicants shall be included in the combined gradation list of
Inspectors for consideration of their cases for promotion to the post of
Deputy Superintendent of Police in accordance with the inter-se seniority
position which may be assigned to them in such a list. If a meeting of the
Departmental Promotion Committee has been held already without considering
the claims of the applicants then the recommendations of that departmental
promotion committee shall not be acted upon and a fresh meeting of the
departmental promotion committee shall be held keeping in view the
directions given herein.
9. Cost of the petition amounting to Rs.1500/- shall also be paid to the
applicants by the respondents."
It is also not in dispute that there was a subsequent adjudication by the
Tribunal of a similar dispute wherein there was an opposition to
preparation of Combined Gradation List for Inspectors of other disciplines
like Finger Print, Motor Transport etc. The appellant and other
beneficiaries of order of the Tribunal dated 11.03.1998 were not parties to
those cases when such subsequent order dated 22.06.1999 was passed. In
paragraph 13 of this order, the Tribunal re-affirmed the correctness and
validity of the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 11.03.1998, upheld the
Combined Gradation List under challenge and examined various new aspects
raised in the subsequent case leading to issuance of additional directions
to amend the Rules. The Madhya Pradesh Police (Gazetted Officers)
Recruitment Rules 1987 were amended by the State Government on 26.05.2000
and in view of the amended rules, fresh Gradation List was prepared which
was admittedly only for Inspectors who were still in service and were
required to be governed by the amended Rules of 2000. It is also not in
dispute that the appellant did not challenge the Gradation List of the year
2000 because his claim was only on the basis of unamended rules which as
per final judicial pronouncement noticed earlier, required publication of a
Combined Gradation List for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent
of Police. Admittedly, appellant retired on 31.03.1998 while holding the
post of Inspector.
The appellant preferred a Misc. Application bearing No.113 of 1998 before
the Tribunal which was heard along with another O.A. bearing No.1122/2000
filed by other Inspectors. The Tribunal dismissed the applications vide
order dated 26.02.2001 by holding that the appellant failed to show that
the order of the Tribunal dated 11.03.1998 had been ignored or violated.
The Tribunal further took a technical stand that no person was impleaded as
a party whose promotion could cause a grievance to the appellant. The
appellant challenged the order of the Tribunal dated 26.02.2001 through a
writ petition which has been dismissed by the order under appeal dated
15.10.2007. The High Court relied upon the observations of the Tribunal
and came to an opinion that in the absence of any allegation regarding non-
consideration in the Departmental Promotion Committee, supersession by
juniors as well as absence of any challenge to the orders of the Tribunal
passed in O.A.Nos.817 and 818 of 1998, the writ petition deserved to be
dismissed as misconceived and meritless.
In the course of hearing of this appeal, on 25.06.2014, we noted the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. The order runs
as follows :
"We have heard arguments in extenso.
Learned counsel for the appellant's submission is that despite the
directions passed on 15.6.1993 and 3.11.1997, a combined list was not
prepared. Meanwhile, persons junior to the petitioner were promoted, such
as Mr. V.N. Dubey at serial no.42 in Annexure P9 before the writ court who
had been promoted with effect from 29.5.1997. It is prayed that even
though the petitioner has superannuated on 31.1.1998, he would at least be
entitled to pensionary benefits computed from the date on which the persons
junior to him in the service were promoted and to simplify this
determination, the Appellant has referred to Mr. V.N. Dubey.
It is in these circumstances that learned counsel for the respondent
prays for an adjournment to obtain instructions on the veracity of Annexure
P9.
Re-notify for this purpose only on 7th August, 2014 for further
hearing."
The date of superannuation of the appellant suffered from a typographical
error in the aforesaid order. That date is 31.03.1998. Annexure P9
available before the writ court showed that appellant was at serial no.12,
much higher to Mr. V.N. Dubey at serial no.42. The reason for not
promoting the appellant and some others like him appointed on the post of
Inspector on 29.05.1981 was indicated to be non-inclusion in the Combined
Gradation List. Mr. V.N. Dubey appointed on the post of Inspector in 1983
has been admittedly promoted w.e.f. 29.05.1997 and on that date the
appellant was still in service.
When the matter was listed for further hearing on 18.11.2014, the learned
counsel for the respondents confirmed that Annexure P9 is an authentic
document and the particulars noted above on its basis are not under
dispute. However, learned counsel for the respondents again sought to
defend the stand of the State on the ground that Mr. Dubey belonged to
another Section and not to Finger Print Section and, therefore, his
promotion made subsequently after the superannuation of the appellant but
from an earlier date cannot furnish any cause of action to the appellant
for claiming that if not actual promotion, he should be given benefit of
notional promotion to that post at least for the purpose of pensionary
benefits.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions, the relevant facts and
the prevailing rules governing promotion at the relevant time. There is no
dispute that despite directions passed since 15.06.1993 by the Tribunal and
lastly reiterated in the case of the appellant on 11.03.1998, a Combined
Gradation List was not prepared at the appropriate time and ultimately when
it was prepared to show compliance with the order of the Tribunal, it was
never acted upon because the subsequent directions of the Tribunal for
amendment of rules was preferred by the State and the claim of the
appellant was never considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee till
he was in service or even thereafter when person like Mr. V.N. Dubey who
was junior to the appellant in the Combined Gradation List was considered
allegedly on the basis of another subsequent gradation list and promoted
with effect from a date when the appellant was still in service.
In the aforesaid circumstances, in our considered view, the Tribunal and
the High Court erred in law as well as on facts in denying relief to the
appellant. The position would have been different if appellant's junior
had been promoted from a date subsequent to his superannuation. Then
appellant would have suffered only on account of passage of time or
innocuous delay but in the present facts he has suffered hostile and
arbitrary discrimination vis--vis a junior. The order under appeal is
therefore set aside. Since the appellant was in service only till
31.03.1998, he is held entitled to notional promotion to the post of Deputy
Superintendent of Police w.e.f. 29.05.1997 till 31.03.1998. He will be
deemed to have superannuated on that post and shall be given all the post
retirement benefits by re-calculating the same on the premise that he held
the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police from 29.05.1997 till his
superannuation on 31.03.1998. The revised pensionary benefits as well as
arrears on that account should be made available to the appellant at the
earliest and in any case within three months from the date of this order.
The appellant is held entitled to a consolidated cost of Rs.50,000/- which
should also be paid along with other benefits within the time indicated
above. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
...........................................J.
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN]
............................................J.
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]
New Delhi.
November 27, 2014.
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.8 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 3906/2009
M.P.SINGH BARGOTI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 27/11/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
For Appellant(s)
Mr. Vishal Arun,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. C. D. Singh,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
T
(Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Indu Pokhriyal)
Court Master Court Master