- (1.) A retired officer of the Indian Police Service (IPS) has approached this Court and his grievance is that his candidature as a Member of Rajasthan Police Service (RPS) for promotion against the vacancies of the year 1993-94 for IPC Cadre for one or other reason was not considered by the competent authorities and the unfortunate part is that he retired as a member of RPS after attaining superannuation age of 58 years, however, the fact that the age of superannuation of officer of the Central Govt. was 60 years the petitioner was promoted to IPS cadre a day before completion of 60 years of age, the age of superannuation after intervention of the Tribunal in OA No.435/2000 vide order dt.22.11.2000 and directed the state authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the IPS cadre on the basis of select list prepared for 1993-94 from the date his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits. At the same time, it was also directed that the period from the date of superannuation from State Police Service to the appointment as IPS would be treated as 'Dies Non' for the purposes of retiral benefits. It will be appropriate to quote operative part of the order of the Tribunal which reads ad infra- "The OA is allowed. The applicant would be entitled for promotion to the IPS on the basis of select list for the year 1993-1994 from the date his junior has been promoted as such with all consequential benefits. The period from the date of superannuation from State Police Service to the appointment as IPS would be treated as 'Dies-Non' for the purpose of retiral benefits. The Central Government is accordingly directed to issue appointment orders in favour of the applicant and appoint him to the IPS, by 5.00 PM of 24.11.2000".
(2.) As reveals from the record the petitioner was found suitable and appointed in the IPS cadre and was granted the benefit of notional fixation vide order dt.30.11.2000 and on attaining superannuation age of 60 years stood retired from service in the cadre of IPS on the next day but he was not granted consequential benefits of IPS cadre for all practical purposes.
(3.) In the subsequent OA No.219/2004 filed by the petitioner, by a detailed judgment dt.5.8.2009 of the Tribunal, the petitioner was directed to make a fresh detailed representation pointing all his grievances, at the same time, the respondents were also directed to consider his grievance and decide by assigning reasons and if he is entitled of certain benefits, the same may be extended to him. Pursuant thereto, detailed representation was submitted by the petitioner and that came to be examined by the competent authority and decided vide order dt.25.1.2010 (Annx.1) for implementation of direction of the tribunal initially passed vide order dt.22.11.2000 (Ann.2) and the order dt.25.1.2010 was again made a subject matter of challenge by filing OA No.526/2010 before the Tribunal and that came to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dt.11.5.2012 which is a subject matter of challenge in the instant petition.;