UNION OF INDIA Vs. S.P. NAYYAR
LAWS(SC)-2014-6-27
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on June 30,2014

UNION OF INDIA (UOI) Appellant
VERSUS
S.P. Nayyar Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

BRIJRAJ SINGH RATHORE SON OF LATE SHRI S.S. RATHORE VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-2-257] [REFERRED TO]
ER CHONROTHUNG EZUNG, NAGALAND VS. STATE OF NAGALAND AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2017-11-59] [REFERRED TO]
BINOD SHANKAR MISHRA, SON OF LATE DHARMDEO MISHRA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-3-74] [REFERRED TO]
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT AND ORS. VS. J. SIVAKUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2015-6-236] [REFERRED TO]
MANGSATABAM HAREKRISHNA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MANIP)-2017-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
K. K. GUPTA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2020-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. RASIKA CHAUBE [LAWS(DLH)-2019-11-32] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH AT CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-2020-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
KSHETRIMAYUM RAJENDRO SINGH AND ORS. VS. LOUREMBAM DEBEN SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(MANIP)-2015-6-3] [REFERRED TO]
SANGHMITRA R. SANDANSING VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2023-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
TAHSILDAR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-5-418] [REFERRED TO]
RAM TIWARI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
ER. RAZOUVOLIE KELIO VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2017-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
ER. RAZOUVOLIE KELIO VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2017-8-87] [REFERRED TO]
ER. CHONROTHUNG EZUNG VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2017-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
AVTAR SINGH ARORA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
YOGENDRA BABU SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CHH)-2023-10-32] [REFERRED TO]
RANJEET SINGH VS. STATE OF H P & ORS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-9-79] [REFERRED]
K K GUPTA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [LAWS(CHH)-2017-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KUMAR VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(TRIP)-2015-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
H.S. SIDHU VS. DEVENDRA BAPNA AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-9-91] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 21st August, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3004/2000. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court after going through the relevant record including ACRs of respondent- S.P. Nayyar, opined that due to personal bias of his superior officer, E.N.Ram Mohan, the respondent- S.P. Nayyar was targeted and was wrongly superseded in the matter of departmental promotion and hence allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent directing the appellants to promote the respondent as Additional DIG with back wages with the following observations:
"13. Under the circumstances, we allow the writ petition and direct the petitioner to be promoted as Addl. DIG. We are directing petitioner to be promoted and not a review DPC to be held, for the reason, learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute that the bench mark to be achieved was 3 Very Good grading in the ACR in the preceding 5 years and that the petitioner achieved the bench mark. Admittedly, there are no adverse entries against the petitioner. The petitioner had not suffered any penalty during the said 5 years period.

14. Needless to state, petitioner's promotion as an Addl. DIG would be with effect from the date person immediately junior to the petitioner was promoted. We note that as an Addl. DIG, the petitioner would have superannuated on 31st July, 2007. We direct petitioner to be paid wages for the said period, notwithstanding the petitioner not having rendered actual services on account of the apparent mala fide of the DG BSF. Needless to state, pension of the petitioner would be re-fixed in the grade applicable and paid accordingly. All consequential benefits will also flow. The petitioner is also held entitled to a sum of Rs.11,000/- to be paid by the respondents towards costs. Necessary payment be made to the petitioner within 12 weeks from today."

(3.)The factual matrix of the case is as follows:-
The respondent -S.P. Nayyar joined the Border Security Force (BSF) as an Assistant Commandant(Technical) in 1971 and was promoted as Deputy Commandant in the year 1981. While in service, the respondent was issued Director-General's displeasure on 27th March, 1984 and 25th February, 1998 for not observing laid down procedure in disposal of condemned vehicles and for irregularities in fabrication of recovery vehicles, respectively.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.