MAJOR GENERAL H.M. SINGH, VSM Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2014-1-18
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on
January 09,2014
Major General H.M. Singh, Vsm
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
H MUKHERJEE UNION OF INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]UNION OF INDIA VS. N P DHAMANIA [REFERRED TO]
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. PARASHOTAM DAS BANSAL [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2020-1-62] [REFERRED TO]AMRITPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2016-3-43] [REFERRED TO]
DHANPAT LAL SHARMA VS. BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD (BBMB) AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2019-8-35] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR VS. BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD (BBMB) AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-4-145] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. B.P. GAIROLA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
MUSTAK ABDULGANI SHAIKH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-4-1243] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASIS KUNDU AND ORS. VS. UOI AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
RANJAN CHAKRABORTY VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2021-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
AHMED ALI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2023-9-73] [REFERRED TO]
VIPIN S. AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2018-6-711] [REFERRED TO]
MANORANJAN OJHA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-2-141] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. CHANDRIKA THAKUR [LAWS(MEGH)-2021-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
ZUBER AHMED VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-178] [REFERRED TO]
K.MANOHAR RAO VS. TSRTC [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
SREELEKHA S VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2019-1-71] [REFERRED TO]
MONIKA WADHWA VS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2019-8-176] [REFERRED TO]
V.VIJAYAKUMARASAMY VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2020-7-417] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIK AHMMAD VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2023-8-61] [REFERRED TO]
ANILKUMAR RUPCHAND UKEY VS. MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION [LAWS(BOM)-2022-10-207] [REFERRED TO]
SHARWAN KUMAR VIGMAL VS. GENERAL MANAGER (NW-II)/(APPOINTING AUTHORITY) STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-575] [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHAL KISHOR SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER VS. MUTHUIRULAPPAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-3-1161] [REFERRED TO]
VIJU P VARGHESE VS. COCHIN PORT TRUST [LAWS(KER)-2023-10-199] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. SHILPA JAYESH PARIKH [LAWS(GJH)-2021-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND KUMAR MISHRA VS. STATE OF U P THRU PRIN SECY [LAWS(ALL)-2019-3-73] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWESH RAJRATNAM VS. STATE OF U P AND 5 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-1-124] [REFERRED TO]
URMILA D. PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-11-1687] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-1-27] [REFERRED TO]
NAVNEET KUMAR VS. U.O.I [LAWS(ALL)-2021-8-208] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH SINGHAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-2-130] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-4-180] [REFERRED TO]
UCO BANK VS. SUJIT BHATTACHARJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2019-12-141] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHARAN SINGH (FORCE NO. 937040966) VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2019-1-324] [REFERRED TO]
FORCE NO 937040966 RAM CHARAN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND 6 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-1-55] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM LAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-3-133] [REFERRED TO]
MAJ GENERAL S. S. KHARA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2024-3-122] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR VS. HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(HPH)-2022-10-37] [REFERRED TO]
GUNANIDHI JENA VS. ORISSA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [LAWS(ORI)-2017-5-29] [REFERRED TO]
KULWANT KUMAR KALSAN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-92] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR SHUKLA VS. ARVIND RAI [LAWS(SC)-2021-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
KH. BRAJAKUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2022-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
ILA GANPATLAL PATEL VS. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2019-12-72] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL ALAG VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-331] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHANT KAPOOR VS. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2016-7-361] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKTI CHAND DOGRA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2014-4-84] [REFERRED TO]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-6-59] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The appellant was commissioned as Second Lieutenant in the Indian Army on 15.6.1969. His initial induction was into the Armoured Corps. On 25.5.1983 the appellant changed his cadre. He permanently moved into the Defence Research and Development Organisation (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRDO'). Having gone through decades of rigorous military service and having consistently earned onward promotions to higher ranks, as were due to him from time to time, he was granted acting rank of Major General on 1.6.2004, after he had been approved for promotion to the rank of Major General by a duly constituted Selection Board.
(2.)On 31.3.2005 Lieutenant General Ravinder Nath retired from service. Resultantly a vacancy in the rank of Lieutenant General became available. On 1.1.2006 the appellant claims to have become eligible for the consideration for promotion to the above vacancy. It would be relevant to mention, that at that juncture, in the cadre of Major Generals, the appellant was the senior most serving officer (as per seniority list dated 29.12.2006) eligible for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General. In the Government of India gazette (published on 6.12.2007) the appellant was shown as having been promoted as substantive Major General with effect from 7.1.2004. It would also be relevant to mention, that the name of the appellant was included in the name announced by the President of India for the award of the Vishist Seva Medal on 26.1.2007. The said award was sought to be bestowed upon the appellant, for his having rendered distinguished service of an exceptional order to the nation. It is therefore, that the appellant was desirous, that his claim be considered for onward promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General. At that juncture, the appellant had not only held the rank of Major General for more 18 months, he had also earned two confidential reports in the said rank. The record appended to the pleadings indicates, that he had also been granted vigilance clearance. Despite the above, the appellant was not considered eligible for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General as he had not completed two years' service in the rank of Major General at that time.
(3.)Under the circumstances mentioned in the foregoing paragraph, AVM R. Yadav, an officer from the Indian Air Force was inducted into the DRDO on 29.12.2005, against the vacancy in the rank of Lieutenant General created by Lieutenant General Ravinder Nath. AVM R. Yadav retired from service with effect from 31.12.2006. As such, a vacancy in the rank of Lieutenant General became available with effect from 1.1.2007.
(2.)On 31.3.2005 Lieutenant General Ravinder Nath retired from service. Resultantly a vacancy in the rank of Lieutenant General became available. On 1.1.2006 the appellant claims to have become eligible for the consideration for promotion to the above vacancy. It would be relevant to mention, that at that juncture, in the cadre of Major Generals, the appellant was the senior most serving officer (as per seniority list dated 29.12.2006) eligible for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General. In the Government of India gazette (published on 6.12.2007) the appellant was shown as having been promoted as substantive Major General with effect from 7.1.2004. It would also be relevant to mention, that the name of the appellant was included in the name announced by the President of India for the award of the Vishist Seva Medal on 26.1.2007. The said award was sought to be bestowed upon the appellant, for his having rendered distinguished service of an exceptional order to the nation. It is therefore, that the appellant was desirous, that his claim be considered for onward promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General. At that juncture, the appellant had not only held the rank of Major General for more 18 months, he had also earned two confidential reports in the said rank. The record appended to the pleadings indicates, that he had also been granted vigilance clearance. Despite the above, the appellant was not considered eligible for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General as he had not completed two years' service in the rank of Major General at that time.
(3.)Under the circumstances mentioned in the foregoing paragraph, AVM R. Yadav, an officer from the Indian Air Force was inducted into the DRDO on 29.12.2005, against the vacancy in the rank of Lieutenant General created by Lieutenant General Ravinder Nath. AVM R. Yadav retired from service with effect from 31.12.2006. As such, a vacancy in the rank of Lieutenant General became available with effect from 1.1.2007.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.