9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Absorption in CID. 2. Justification of repatriation after long service. 3. Repatriation as Constables despite promotions. 4. Discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Absorption in CID: The respondents contended that they should be absorbed in the CID where they had served for over 23 years with an excellent and unblemished service record. The Court, however, held that there is no separate cadre for officers up to the rank of Sub-Inspector in CID, and the respondents do not have any right to hold the post they were holding in CID in their parent department. The Court emphasized that deputation to CID is governed by Rule 21.25 of the Punjab Police Rules, which does not provide for absorption in CID. 2. Justification of Repatriation after Long Service: The respondents argued that repatriating them after more than 23 years of service in CID without giving them any benefit of the service rendered was unjust. The Court noted that while it was harsh to send them back after serving in higher ranks on an ad hoc basis, the respondents were aware of their rights and privileges in the deputation post. The Court also pointed out that the respondents were holding posts in CID only on an ad hoc basis and had no right to hold those posts in their parent department. 3. Repatriation as Constables Despite Promotions: The respondents challenged their repatriation as Constables when their juniors had been promoted to higher ranks. The Court clarified that the respondents do not have any right to be promoted in their parent department based on their officiation in CID. The Court cited several precedents, including D.M. Bharti v. L.M. Sud and Ors., to establish that promotions earned on deputation do not enjoin any protection, and on repatriation, the employee can only be accommodated in the original post or the post to which they stood notionally promoted in the parent department. 4. Discrimination and Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution: The respondents claimed that the order of repatriation was discriminatory and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court found no substance in this contention, stating that the rule-making authority is competent to frame rules laying down eligibility conditions for promotion. The Court emphasized that seniority does not entitle a public servant to promotion unless they fulfill the eligibility conditions prescribed by the relevant rules. The Court upheld the statutory rules and dismissed the claim of discrimination. Conclusion: The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment to the extent that respondents with 20 years of qualifying service could seek voluntary retirement from the ranks they were holding in CID. The Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the respondents and set aside the impugned judgment except for the provision allowing voluntary retirement. The appeals were allowed, and no order as to costs was made.
|
