Union of India Vs. P.K. Lambodaran Nair
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1788 of 1997
Petitioner: Union of India
Respondent: P.K. Lambodaran Nair
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1788 of 1997
Judges: V.N. KHARE & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 29, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Article 136 – Relief – Officer of State Police Service, who was to retire on 30.9.95, granted extention for 3 months – Select list of to IPS becoming operative on 17.11.95 – OM dated 18.5.77 prescribing for no extension to retiring persons for purpose of promotion – Tribunal holding the OM inapplicable being administrative. Held that view of the Tribunal is not correct. However, since, decision of the Tribunal implemented and officer was about to retire, no interference.
(Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The respondent herein was the member of the Kerala State Police Service. He was to retire on 30th September, 1995 but the government granted him extension of service for three months. A select list wherein the name of respondent no. 1 was included for promotion to the Indian Police Service became operative on 17th November, 1995. The Central Government had issued an Office Memorandum on 18.5.77 whereunder it was provided that where a person who is to retire he shall not be given extension of service for the purposes of promotion to the higher post. In view of the aforesaid memorandum the Central Government declined the promotion of the respondent to Indian Police Service. At this stage the respondent filed a petition before Central Administration Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the view that the Office Memorandum dated 18.5.77 being executive instructions has no application where promotion are regulated by statutory Rules and therefore the Central Government ought to have approved the name of the respondent for promotion to the post of Indian Police Service. Consequently the petition was allowed. The appellant – Union of India is in appeal before us.
2. We have heard the parties. On perusal of the judgment we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal that Office Memorandum, dated 18.5.77 was not applicable in the present case does not appear to be a correct view of law. However, as the Central Government has implemented the decision of the Tribunal and the respondent has continued to work on the promoted post and is to retire shortly after five months, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter. With the above observation we dismiss this appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. The respondent herein was the member of the Kerala State Police Service. He was to retire on 30th September, 1995 but the government granted him extension of service for three months. A select list wherein the name of respondent no. 1 was included for promotion to the Indian Police Service became operative on 17th November, 1995. The Central Government had issued an Office Memorandum on 18.5.77 whereunder it was provided that where a person who is to retire he shall not be given extension of service for the purposes of promotion to the higher post. In view of the aforesaid memorandum the Central Government declined the promotion of the respondent to Indian Police Service. At this stage the respondent filed a petition before Central Administration Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the view that the Office Memorandum dated 18.5.77 being executive instructions has no application where promotion are regulated by statutory Rules and therefore the Central Government ought to have approved the name of the respondent for promotion to the post of Indian Police Service. Consequently the petition was allowed. The appellant – Union of India is in appeal before us.
2. We have heard the parties. On perusal of the judgment we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal that Office Memorandum, dated 18.5.77 was not applicable in the present case does not appear to be a correct view of law. However, as the Central Government has implemented the decision of the Tribunal and the respondent has continued to work on the promoted post and is to retire shortly after five months, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter. With the above observation we dismiss this appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.
