M V KRISHNA RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)Civil Appeal No. 2177 of 1988.
The appellants are direct recruits to Indian Police Service (I.P.S.), while the respondents 5 to 11 are promotees. In this appeal directed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, the dispute pertains to the proper year of allotment to be assigned to respondents 5 to 11. The Original Application in the Central Administrative Tribunal was filed by the said respondents. The appellants as well as respondents 12 to 14 in this appeal were impleaded as respondents 5 to 11. Respondents 12 to 14 in this appeal are also direct recruits. Since they did not join the appellants in filing this appeal, they have been impleaded as respondents. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the appellants as direct recruits and to respondents 5 to 11 as promotees.
(2.)The promotees were substantive members of the Andhra Pradesh State Police Service. They were included in the select list prepared under and in accordance with the I.P.S. Promotion Regulations on 9th January, 1978. Even before the said date, all of them (except Sri K. Narsimha) were posted in cadre posts. They continued to officiate in such cadre posts even after January 9, 1978, till they were appointed to the I.P.S. Respondent No. 5 was appointed to I.P.S. on December 19, 1978, Respondent No. 6 on September 20, 1979 and the remaining on November 13, 1979. If their dates of appointment to I.P.S. is taken as the basis, Respondent No. 5 would be entitled to be assigned 1974 as his year of allotment while the other respondents would get 1975 -and this is what the Government of India did. The promotee-respondent's case, however, is that inasmuch as they have officiated continuously in a cadre post, they were entitled to count their service at least from January 9, 1978 (the date of inclusion in the selection list) for the purpose of determining their year of allotment and that if so counted, they will get the year 1973 as their year of allotment. The Central Administrative Tribunal has upheld this claim of the Respondents 5 to 11.
(3.)The four appellants and respondents 12 to 14 (direct recruits) have been assigned 1974 as their year of allotment. This is not in question. Since they were likely to be affected by the grant of relief claimed by the promotees, they were impleaded as respondents in the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. These direct recruits contested the promotees' claim before the Tribunal, so did the Government of India.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.