Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Rameshwar Singh Thakur vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 24 November, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A.No.1380-HP-2013 Orders pronounced on: 24.11.2015
(Orders reserved on: 30.10.2015)
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J) &
HONBLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A)
Rameshwar Singh Thakur, I.P.S.
S/o Late Shri Hari Singh,
R/o Village Lohali,
P.O. Jubbar Hatti, District Shimla H.P.
presently working on deputation with Ministry of Environment & Forest, Government of India and
Deputy Director Wild Life Crime Central Bureau,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Union Public Service Commission
through its Secretary,
Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110003.
3. State of Himachal Pradesh through the
Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh,
Shimla.
Respondents
Present: Mr. K.S. Banyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ramakant Sharma & Mr. Amandeep Sharma, counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Anshul Bansal, for the Respondents No.1.
None for Respondents No.2 & 3.
O R D E R
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK , MEMBER (J)
1. This case was listed for hearing at Circuit Bench Shimla on 23.9.2015. On the request of learned counsel for the parties, it was listed for hearing at Chandigarh on 30.10.2015. Today none appears for Respondents No.2 and 3. Thus, proceeding under rule 16 of the C.A.T (Procedure) Rules, 1987, against these respondents, we have heard learned counsel for the applicant and respondent No.1 and examined the pleadings on the file.
2. The challenge in this Original Application is to an order dated 18.9.2012 (Annexure A-4) and order / letter dated 26/27.07.2012 (Annexure A-1) vide which the applicant has been allotted year of allotment in Indian Police Service in Himachal Pradesh Cadre as 2006 and for issuance of direction to respondents to allot him year 2004 with all consequential benefits.
3. The facts which lead to filing of this Original Application are that the applicant, an ex-serviceman, joined Himachal Pradesh Police Service on 5.9.1994, after qualifying the open selection through the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission.
4. State Government in order to extend benefits and re-habilitation of the demobilized armed forces personnel and ex-servicemen has framed the rules namely Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of vacancies in Himachal State Non-Technical Services) Rules 1972 and Demobilised Indian Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies) in the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service Rules, 1974. The state Government has been providing the benefits to the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel and Ex-servicemen under the provisions of these rules. Rule 4 (1) (a) & (b) of said rules are reproduced as under :-
Rule 4(1):
"Fixation of pay, seniority and retirement benefits.- (1) The period of military service rendered after attaining the minimum age prescribed for appointment to the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service, by the candidates appointed against reserved vacancies under Rule 2 shall count towards fixation of pay and seniority in the said service subject to the condition that, -
(a) the date of appointment in the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service in respect of such candidates as are appointed against the reserved vacancies under Rule 2 shall be determined on the assumption that they joined the service under the State Government at the first opportunity they had after joining military service or training prior to the commission.
(b) The inter-se seniority of the military personnel determined by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission shall not be disturbed; and ) A military personnel appointment as a result of an earlier selection shall be senior to a military personnel appointed by direct recruitment in the year to which the former candidate are allotted.
5. In exercise of powers vested under Rule 4 (1)(a)( & (b) of the Demobilized Indian Armed Forces (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service) Rules, 1974, which were adopted for H.P. Police Service vide notification dated 17.10.1981, vide order dated 29.4.2003 the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Respondent No.3) counting pre-commissioned training period of applicant on notional basis i.e. 10 months and 5 days w.e.f. 18.10.1985 to 22.08.1986 and his seniority in HPPS was fixed w.e.f. 8.9.1988 above Shri S. Chhopal, HPPS of 1989 batch. In other words the notional benefit of service was given to him in HPPS of 1989 and his seniority in the HPPS was accordingly fixed. The claim of the applicant is that the order dated 29.4.2003 has attained finality and has never been challenged by any one till date.
6. The next appointment / promotion from HPPS is to the Indian Police Service which is governed by These regulations may be called the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. The applicant became eligible for consideration for appointment to the IPS against the select list of 2010 as per notification dated 19.12.2011 by taking into consideration his notional seniority, as eligible service. However, the respondents issued impugned order dated 27.6.2012 (A-1) allotting year of the Select List on the basis of which appointment to IPS was to be made as 2006-A instead of 2004. The applicant submitted a representation dated Nil (Annexure A-3) which was forwarded vide letter dated 31.8.2012 making a request that vide impugned order year of allotment of 14 promoted IPS officers of H.P. cadre has been fixed whereas applicant was entitled to fixation of year of allotment as 2004 as his seniority in HPPS had been fixed w.e.f. 8.9.1988, the deemed date of his appointment in HPPS cadre. However, the claim of the applicant was rejected vide order / letter dated 18.9.2012 on the ground that as per IPS (Regulation of Seniority)Rules, 1988, as amended from time to time, continuous service rendered by an officer in the State Police Service not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent is to be taken into account for calculation of his total years of service in order to reach his year of allotment. Further there is no provision for consideration of deemed date of appointment in the DSP rank for assigning seniority or the year of allotment to the officers appointed by promotion as per the said Regulations. As such the seniority of allotment of Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur has been assigned as 2006 in pursuance to Rule 3 (3)(ii) of the IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, as amended from time to time. Hence the Original Application.
7. Respondent No. 1 has filed a reply taking the same stand as mentioned in the rejection order dated 18.9.2012 to which the applicant has filed a rejoinder. Despite number of opportunities the respondents No.2 and 3 did not file any reply nor did they appear when the case came up for hearing on 30.10.2015 and as such recourse to rule 16 of C.A.T (Procedure) Rules, 1987 was adopted.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant would argue that once the applicant had been given benefit of notional seniority in HPPS cadre from 1988, the notional service would also count as eligible service for induction into IPS whereas the plea of the respondents is that the eligible service would take within its sweep only actual service.
9. We have heard available learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on the file and examined the material on the file.
10. It is not in dispute that the applicant was given benefit of pre-commissioned service into HPPS in terms of Rule 4 (1)(a) & (b) of Demobilized Indian Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service) Rules, 1974 and by counting his notional service he was assigned seniority w.e.f. 8.9.1988 vide order dated 29.4.2003. This is also in consonance with the view taken by Honble Apex Court in the case of Kashmir Singh Rana & Another Vs. O.C. Thakur & Others, Civil Appeal No. 1839 of 2007.
11. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that an ex-serviceman Mr. B.R. Verma, a Member of IAS, had raised a claim in O.A. No. 131-HP-2012 challenging the withdrawal of benefit of notional service as eligible service for induction into IAS and allotment of year in this Tribunal which was allowed on 20.7.2012 with an observation that withdrawal of benefit was done in sheer in violation of principles of natural justice and that similar benefit stood granted to colleagues of the applicant therein and as such same could not be denied to him and as such withdrawal order was invalidated. In implementation of the order of this Tribunal the Government of India passed order dated 15.1.2013 restoring the seniority/ year of allotment of 1996 to Mr. B.R. Verma. The learned counsel for the applicant would argue that case of the applicant is covered by case of Shri B .R. Verma (supra) whereas learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would submit that case of B.R. Verma (supra) was based on IAS Regulations whereas the applicant is seeking benefit under IPS Regulations and as such he cannot be extended any benefit.
12. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties present and have examined the pleadings.
13. Since the controversy boils down to this as to whether there is any difference in IAS regulations and IPS regulations as such same are reproduced below in a comparative form :-
Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987.
Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988.
Regulation 3.
Assignment of year of allotment:- (1) Every officer shall be assigned a year of allotment in accordance with the provisions hereinafter contained in these rules.
(2) The year of allotment of an officer in Service at the commencement of these rules shall be the same as has been assigned to him or may be assigned to him by the Central Government in accordance with the orders and instructions in force immediately before the commencement of these rules.
(3) The year of allotment of an officer appointed to the Service after the commencement of these rules shall be as follows:-
(i) the year of allotment of a direct recruit officer shall be the year following the year in which the competitive examination was held:
Provided that if a direct recruit officer is permitted to join probationary training under rule 5(1) of the IAS (Probation) Rules, 1954, with direct recruit officers of a subsequent year of allotment, then he shall be assigned that subsequent year as the year of allotment. 5(ii) The year of allotment of a promotee officer shall be determined with reference to the year for which the meeting of the Committee to make selection, to prepare the select list on the basis of which he was appointed to the Service, was held and with regard to the continuous service rendered by him in the State Civil Service not below the rank of a Deputy Collector or equivalent, up to the 31st day of December of the year immediately before the year for which meeting of the Committee to make selection was held to prepare the select list on the basis of which he was appointed to the Service, in the following manner:-
a. for the service rendered by him upto twenty one years, he shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed three years of service, subject to a minimum of four years;
b. he shall also be given a weightage of one year for every completed two years of service beyond the period of twenty one years, referred to in sub-clause (a), subject to a maximum of three years.
Regulation 3.
Assignment of year of allotment. (1) Every officer shall be assigned a year of allotment in accordance with the provisions hereinafter contained in these rules.
(2) The year of allotment of an officer in Service at the commencement of these rules shall be the same as has been assigned to him or may be assigned to him by the Central Government in accordance with the rules, orders and instructions in force immediately before the commencement of these rules.
(3) The year of allotment of an officer appointed to the service after the commencement of these rules shall be as follows: -
(i) the year of allotment of a direct recruit officer shall be the year following the year in which the competitive examination was held:
(ii) The year of allotment of a promotee officer shall be determined with reference to the [year for which] the meeting of the Committee to make selection, to prepare the Select List on the basis of which he was appointed to the Service, was held and with regard to the continuous service rendered by him in the State Police Service not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent, upto the 31st day of December of the year immediately before the [year for which] the meeting of the Committee to make selection was held to prepare the select list on the basis of which he was appointed to the Service, in the following manner:-
(a) for the service rendered by him upto twenty one years, he shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed three years of service, subject to a minimum of four years:
(b) He shall also be given a weightage of one year for every completed two years of service beyond the period of twenty one years, referred to in sub-clause (a), subject to a maximum of three years.
Explanation: For the purpose of calculation of weightage under this clause, fractions, if any, are to be ignored.
Provided that he shall not be assigned a year of allotment earlier than the year of allotment assigned to an officer senior to him in that select list or appointed to the service on the basis of an earlier select list.
Amendment was carried out by Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Amendment Rules, 2012 on 18.4.2012 as under :-
3, in sub-rule (3), in clause (ii),-
(A) The words "immediately before the year" shall be omitted;
(B) For sub-clauses (a) and (b), the following clauses shall be substituted, namely:-
(a) for the service rendered by him upto twelve years, he shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed four years of service, subject to a minimum of three years;
(b) for the service rendered by him beyond 12 years, as referred to in sub-clause (a) and upto 21 years, he shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed three years of service;
(c) for the service rendered by him beyond 21 years, as referred to in sub-clause (b), he shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed two years of service, subject to a maximum of three years".
Amendment was carried out by Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Amendment Rules, 2012 on 18.4.2012 on as under :-
3, in sub-rule (3) for clause (ii), -
(A) The words immediately before the year shall be omitted;
(B) For sub-clauses (a) and (b), the following clauses shall be substituted, namely:-
(a) for the service rendered by him upto twelve years, he shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed four years of service, subject to a minimum of three years;
(b) for the service rendered by him beyond 12 years, as referred to in sub-clause (a) and upto 21 years, he shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed three years of service;
(c) for the service rendered by him beyond 21 years, as referred to in sub-clause (b), he shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed two years of service, subject to a maximum of three years.
14. We find that earlier the allotment of year in IAS as well as IPS Regulations was governed by rule 3 of both the Regulations. An analysis of the aforesaid regulations leaves no manner of doubt that there is no difference in both the regulations. Once the respondents have themselves admitted the correctness of method provided in the IAS Regulations for determination of allotment year to Sh. B.R. Verma (supra), they cannot deny similar benefit to the applicant in terms of IPS Regulations which are parri passu with the IAS Regulations.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this O.A. is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to pass necessary orders on the claim of the applicant extending him due benefits at par with Sh. B.R. Verma (supra) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (J) (UDAY KUMAR VARMA) MEMBER (A) Place: Chandigarh.
Dated: 24.11.2015 HC* 1 O.A.NO.1380-HP-2013 O.A.NO.1380-HP-2013 (R.S. THAKUR VS. UOI ETC.)