2000 (4) TMI 816 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Seniority and Promotion of Police Officers.
2. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Special Leave Petition (SLP).
3. Application of Negative Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
4. Consequences of Judicial Pronouncements on Service Benefits.

Summary:

1. Seniority and Promotion of Police Officers:
The respondents, Brij Bihari Prasad Singh and Kameshwar Prasad Singh, along with Ramjas Singh, were directly recruited as Sub-Inspectors of Police on 2.1.1966. Brij Bihari Prasad Singh was promoted as Inspector of Police on officiating basis on 16.7.1971, with a stipulation that he would not get seniority until selected by the IG's Board. He was substantively promoted on 2.7.1978 and confirmed on 1.4.1982. He filed a writ petition for promotion to Dy.SP, treating his promotion date as 27.7.1971, which was allowed by the High Court. However, the DGP later modified this order, confirming his seniority from 2.7.1978. Brij Bihari Prasad Singh filed another writ petition, which was allowed, directing his promotion as Dy.SP from 25.10.1975, the date when Ramjas Singh was promoted.

2. Condonation of Delay in Filing the SLP:
The appellants filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 679 days in filing the SLP, attributing the delay to the fear of contempt and various coercive orders by the High Court. The Supreme Court condoned the delay, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, citing precedents like Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst.Katiji & Ors. [1987 (2) SCR 387].

3. Application of Negative Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution:
The Supreme Court held that the concept of equality under Article 14 cannot be enforced negatively. Benefits extended to some individuals in an irregular or illegal manner cannot be claimed by others on the plea of equality. The Court cited Gursharan Singh & Ors. v. NDMC & Ors. [1996 (2) SCC 459] and Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain & Ors. [1997 (1) SCC 35], emphasizing that judicial process cannot be abused to perpetuate illegalities.

4. Consequences of Judicial Pronouncements on Service Benefits:
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's directions resulted in the supersession of many senior officers, which was unjustified. The writ petitions filed by Brij Bihari Prasad Singh and Kameshwar Prasad Singh were found to be misconceived and contrary to service rules. The Court set aside the judgments of the High Court but protected the service benefits already conferred upon Brij Bihari Prasad Singh, ensuring his promotions and appointment to the IPS cadre were not disturbed. The Court also directed that no action be taken against retired officers who had received similar benefits.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court judgments while protecting the service benefits of Brij Bihari Prasad Singh and retired officers. The Court emphasized the importance of substantial justice and the correct application of service rules.

← Previous Next →