Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Rajinder Kumar Sharda vs Chief Secretary Government Of Punjab on 6 October, 2025
1 (OA No. 453/2023)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Reserved on : 09.09.2025
Pronounced on : 06.10.2025
OA No. 453/2023
HON'BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA,MEMBER(A)
Rajinder Kumar Sharda aged about 66 years son of Sh. Rattan
Chand Sharda, R/o House No. 407, Mota Singh Nagar,
Jalandhar City.
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Sh. Narinder Pal Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary to Government of
India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New
Delhi-110011.
2. Union Public Service Commission through its
Secretary, Dholpur House, Shahajahan Road, New
Delhi-110069.
3. State of Punjab through the Addl. Chief Secretary,
Government of Punjab, Department of Home
Affairs and Justice, Punjab Civil Secretariat,
Chandigarh-160001.
..............Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Sh. K.K. Thakur for respdt. No. 1
Sh. B.B. Sharma for respdt. No. 2)
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.10.16 17:10:52+05'30'
2 (OA No. 453/2023)
ORDER
Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):
1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):-
(i) Quash against notification No.1-14011/22/2020-IPS.IE (1) (b) dated 07.04.2021 (Annexure A-1) issued by the extent the name of the applicant has not been included therein qua vacancies of 2010 (Select List 2010) whereas in select list for the year 2010 which has been prepared by the selection committee on 29.01.2021, he stand at serial No.2 against the available vacancies for the said and quashing thereof to that extent, being violative of law laid by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in C.L. Lakhanpal versus UPSC and others 1998 (3) SLR 436 and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in WR(Civil) No.844 of 2013 titled as Mahesh Chand versus UOI and others decided on 16.10.2014 and other judgments rendered by this Hon'ble Tribunal as detailed in body of O.A.
(ii) Direct the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to issue corrigendum to the notification dated 07.04.2021 (A-1) or issue fresh notification so as to include the name of the applicant at its appropriate place i.e. serial No.2 in terms of select list prepared by the Selection Committee and to offer him appointment to IPS (Punjab Cadre) w.e.f. due date with all the consequential benefits including revised retrial benefits qua the vacancies for the year 2010 in terms of judgments of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of C.L Lakhanpal versus UPSC and others 1998 (3) SLR 436 and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in WR (Civil) No.844 of 2013 titled as Mahesh Chand versus Union of India and Others decided on 16 10 2014 and other judgments passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal as given in the body of O.A.
2. The facts as given in the Original Application are that the applicant was appointed as Superintendent of Police w.e.f. 01.04.1992 and was later placed in the rank of officiating Superintendent of Police. The next promotion from Punjab Police Service (PPS) is to the Indian Police NEERU DOUGALL 2025.10.16 17:10:52+05'30' 3 (OA No. 453/2023) Service (IPS) under the IPS Recruitment Rules, 1954, and IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. As per Rule 4 of the IPS Recruitment Rules, recruitment to IPS is by competitive examination, promotion of a substantive State Civil Service officer, or special selection from gazetted officers. Rule 8 empowers the Central Government to recruit officers by promotion on the State Government's recommendation, in consultation with UPSC. Regulation 4 of the 1955 Regulations requires the Selection Committee to prepare a list of suitable officers annually, subject to vacancies.
3. Officers with eight years of service in substantive capacity are eligible for promotion. However, due to seniority disputes and other delays, no selection lists were prepared from 2010 onwards. The seniority of Punjab Police officers was settled by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No. 6801/2013, judgment dated 02.11.2018, and the final seniority list was issued by the State Government on 03.07.2020. UPSC convened the Selection Committee on 29.01.2021 to review Select Lists for 2010-2013 and prepare lists for 2014-2018.
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.10.16 17:10:52+05'30' 4 (OA No. 453/2023)
4. During this period, retired PPS officers filed CM No. 2805- CWP-2021 in CWP No. 10914/2020 seeking clarification that UPSC proceedings should not be stalled. The Hon'ble High Court clarified on 22.02.2021 (Annexure A-2) and again on 23.03.2021 (Annexure A-3) that UPSC could proceed with finalizing the Select Lists.
5. The applicant retired on 28.02.2014, but the process for his induction to IPS had become due in 2010. UPSC finalized the Review Select List of 2010 placing the applicant at serial number 2 (Annexure A-4), yet the Notification dated 07.04.2021 (Annexure A-1) excluded his name solely on the ground of retirement, while juniors were inducted.
6. This exclusion violates law. Rule 5 of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 mandates preparation of Select Lists for each year, and the applicant's review list was based on the seniority list finalized on 03.07.2020 per the High Court's 2018 judgment. His exclusion despite being found suitable is illegal.
7. Legal precedents establish that retirement cannot prevent promotion if the right had accrued. In C.L. Lakhanpal v. UPSC (1998), the Hon'ble High Court held retirement is NEERU DOUGALL 2025.10.16 17:10:52+05'30' 5 (OA No. 453/2023) no bar. CAT Chandigarh in Maya Ram (O.A. 899/2005), Ramesh Chand Panwar (O.A. 813/2006), and other cases allowed induction into IFS post-retirement or posthumously. Similarly, in Mahesh Chand v. UOI (W.P.(C) 844/2013, 16.10.2014, Annexure A-5), officers Shiv Prashad and Virender Singh Hooda (Annexures A-6 & A-7), and IPS officers Hukam Singh (O.A. 348/2012) and Parbhat Singh (O.A. 317-JK-2011) were inducted post-retirement.
8. Similarly situated colleagues of the applicant were granted relief by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 060/405/2021, 060/407/2021, 060/413/2021, 060/427/2021, 060/535/2021, and 060/561/2021 vide common order dated 14.12.2021 (Annexure A-9). The applicant submitted a representation on 01.02.2022 (Annexure A-
10) requesting his promotion with all consequential benefits, but no action has been taken.
9. The respondents have acted illegally and arbitrarily by excluding the applicant's name from the 07.04.2021 Notification despite settled law and similar cases. As a result, the applicant suffers in terms of IPS status and seniority while juniors have been inducted. Having no NEERU DOUGALL 2025.10.16 17:10:52+05'30' 6 (OA No. 453/2023) alternative remedy, the applicant approaches this Hon'ble Tribunal through the present Original Application.
10. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 wherein it has been stated that the applicant has filed this Original Application seeking a direction to consider his claim for appointment by promotion to the Indian Police Service (IPS) from the State Police Service against the vacancies of the Review Select List of 2010, which was notified vide Notification dated 07.04.2021.
11. Respondent No. 1 submits that the applicant has not exhausted all available statutory remedies under the relevant rules before approaching this Tribunal. Hence, the O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
12. It is further stated that the applicant was a State Police Officer of Punjab and superannuated from the post of Dy. Superintendent of Police on 28.02.2014 upon attaining the age of 58 years. As per Regulation 9(1) of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, appointment to IPS from the State Police Service requires the officer's willingness and validity of the select list. The rule provides that NEERU DOUGALL 2025.10.16 17:10:52+05'30' 7 (OA No. 453/2023) appointment shall be made by the Central Government in the order in which names appear in the select list for the time being in force.
13. Although the applicant's name appeared in the Review Select List of 2010, he could not be appointed to IPS under Regulation 9(1) as he had already retired from the State Police Service on the date of notification. As per DoP&T's order dated 10.04.1989 (Annexure 1), promotions have only prospective effect: promotions made in the order of the consolidated select list have effect only from the date of appointment, even if the vacancies relate to earlier years.
14. The Review Select List of 2010 was prepared in 2021 due to reasons beyond the Ministry's control. Appointments are made based on facts existing on the date of appointment, and therefore, the applicant could not be appointed to IPS after retirement. The regulations apply uniformly, and no exception can be made for the applicant. There is no irregularity in not appointing him against the Review Select List of 2010.
15. Reply has also been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 wherein it has been stated that the Union Public Service NEERU DOUGALL 2025.10.16 17:10:52+05'30' 8 (OA No. 453/2023) Commission (UPSC), under Article 320 of the Constitution and the All India Services Act, 1951, conducts promotions from State Police Service (SPS) to Indian Police Service (IPS) in accordance with the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. As per Regulation 5, the Ministry of Home Affairs, in consultation with the State Government, determines vacancies and forwards proposals with seniority and eligibility lists, integrity certificates, disciplinary records, and complete ACR dossiers of eligible officers to the Commission. The Selection Committee, presided over by the UPSC Chairman/Member, assesses these officers and classifies them as "Outstanding," "Very Good," "Good,"
or "Unfit" based on an in-depth review of their service records (Regulations 5(4)-5(5)), including individual attributes, performance, awards, penalties, and postings. Officers categorized as "Outstanding" are those demonstrating exceptional merit in at least four of the last five ACRs; "Very Good" officers have highly meritorious work in four of five ACRs; "Good" officers show generally good performance; and "Unfit" officers have adverse reports or penalties affecting promotion suitability. Following preparation of the Select List, NEERU DOUGALL 2025.10.16 17:10:52+05'30' 9 (OA No. 453/2023) recommendations are forwarded to the State and Central Governments for observations (Regulations 6, 6A), after which UPSC takes final decisions under Regulation 7, and the Ministry of Home Affairs implements the appointments. This procedure applies uniformly across all States/Cadres. The Selection Committee's recommendations were approved by the Commission on 01.04.2021 and acted upon by the Government of India, MHA, via notification dated 07.04.2021, including the promotion of Shri Rajinder Kumar Sharda to IPS of Punjab Cadre based on his 2010 assessment as "Very Good."
16. Respondent No. 3 has also filed a reply wherein it has been stated that the Applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking directions to Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 to issue a corrigendum to the notification dated 07.04.2021 (Annexure A-1) or a fresh notification, so as to correctly include the Applicant's name at serial No. 2 in the Select List and to offer appointment to the IPS Punjab Cadre with all consequential benefits, including revised retirement benefits for vacancies of 2010, citing judgments of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.L. Lakhanpal v. UPSC (1998) and the NEERU DOUGALL 2025.10.16 17:10:52+05'30' 10 (OA No. 453/2023) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand v. UOI (WR Civil No. 844 of 2013, decided 16.10.2014), along with other Tribunal rulings.
17. It is further stated that Respondent No. 1, being the competent authority for IPS appointments, clarified that the seniority lists of State Police Service (SPS) officers issued vide Endst. No. 8/435/2011-1H3/3727-29 dated 19.12.2011 and No. 8/435/2011-3H3/278 dated 29.01.2013 were challenged by promottee PPS officers in various CWPs. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, in CWP No. 6801 of 2013 (Sh. Gurdial Singh and others v. State of Punjab & others), quashed the seniority lists of 19.12.2011 and 29.01.2013 and directed the State Government to prepare revised seniority lists. Pursuant to the High Court's Judgment/Order dated 02.11.2018, the State Government issued the revised seniority list via a speaking order on 03.07.2020.
18. Following the revised seniority list, a proposal for reviewing Select Lists for 2010-2013 and preparing Select Lists for 2014-2018 was sent to Respondent No.
2. The Selection Committee met on 29.01.2021 to NEERU DOUGALL 2025.10.16 17:10:52+05'30' 11 (OA No. 453/2023) review and prepare these lists, and recommendations were forwarded to Respondent No. 1. Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 issued the Select List notifications on 07.04.2021 (Annexure A-4) and appointment notifications on the same date (Annexure A-1). While the Applicant's name was included in the Select List of 2010, it was not reflected in the appointment notification.
19. Respondent No. 3 further submits that the Applicant's exclusion from the appointment notification was neither illegal nor arbitrary. The reply emphasizes that all actions were taken in compliance with the High Court's directions, and that the notifications issued on 07.04.2021 (Annexure A-1) correctly followed the revised seniority and selection processes.
20. The applicant has filed a rejoinder reiterating his stand as taken in the Original Application.
21. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings on record.
22. The applicant contends that the respondents' failure to appoint him to the Indian Police Service (IPS) despite his suitability for the 2010 vacancies is illegal, arbitrary, and NEERU DOUGALL 2025.10.16 17:10:52+05'30' 12 (OA No. 453/2023) contrary to law, and therefore the action should be quashed with directions for his appointment with all consequential benefits including seniority, pay, allowances, and interest at 18% per annum.
23. It is submitted that under Regulation 5 of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, a Select List of members suitable for promotion must be prepared annually, and if delayed, separate lists must be prepared for each year. The applicant was arbitrarily excluded on the ground of his retirement on 28.02.2016, although his name was on the Select List for 2010, which could not be acted upon earlier due to a seniority dispute that was settled only in 2018. The respondents' failure to prepare the list in a timely manner constitutes non-performance of statutory duty, for which the applicant cannot be made to suffer.
24. The applicant further submits that he served over 34 years in the State Police Service and fulfilled all conditions for promotion to the IPS. Had the statutory provisions of Regulation 5 been followed, he would have been promoted in 2010 itself, but the pendency of the seniority dispute delayed the preparation of the select NEERU DOUGALL 2025.10.16 17:10:52+05'30' 13 (OA No. 453/2023) list. It is a well-settled principle of statutory interpretation, as held in Anwer Hasan Khan v. Mohd. Shafi (2001) 8 SCC 540, that statutory provisions must be read harmoniously and in a manner that gives effect to all provisions; the respondents' narrow, technical interpretation is therefore untenable.
25. It is submitted that the IPS Regulations do not require a member to express willingness for retroactive promotion, and the applicant cannot be denied promotion merely because he retired due to departmental delay. The principle of deeming fiction applies, as once the applicant's right to consideration for promotion was recognized, he cannot be denied the benefit due to retirement, which would have been at age 60 had he been promoted on time.
26. The applicant relies on judicial precedents including Mahesh Chand v. UOI (2014), where delayed promotion entitled the petitioner to deemed appointment with all consequential benefits, as well as a series of judgments establishing that similarly placed candidates must receive relief without having to approach the courts individually (Chaman Lal v. UPSC, 1998; State NEERU DOUGALL 2025.10.16 17:10:52+05'30' 14 (OA No. 453/2023) of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, 2006; Ashwini Kumar v.
State of Bihar, 1987; Prem Devi v. Delhi Administration, 1988, etc.).
27. Finally, the applicant submits that the respondents' action is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and therefore cannot be sustained in law.
28. Having considered the pleadings, material on record, and submissions of the parties, this Tribunal finds that the applicant's claim merits consideration. It is evident that the applicant, having served in the Punjab Police Service with over 34 years of service and having been placed at serial number 2 in the Review Select List for 2010, had a vested right to promotion to the Indian Police Service (IPS). The delay in preparation of the Select List was due to factors beyond the applicant's control, including seniority disputes which were only resolved pursuant to the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 02.11.2018 (CWP No. 6801/2013).
29. The respondents' contention that the applicant's retirement prior to issuance of the notification disentitles NEERU DOUGALL 2025.10.16 17:10:52+05'30' 15 (OA No. 453/2023) him from promotion is not sustainable in light of settled judicial precedents. In C.L. Lakhanpal v. UPSC (1998 (3) SLR 436), the Hon'ble High Court held that retirement cannot operate as a bar where a statutory right to promotion had already accrued. Similarly, in Mahesh Chand v. Union of India (WR Civil No. 844 of 2013, decided 16.10.2014), the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognized that officers entitled to promotion cannot be deprived of such appointment merely due to delayed implementation by the administration. The principle of "deemed appointment" in cases of delayed promotions has also been upheld by this Tribunal vide common order dated 14.12.2021 (Annexure A-9) in a series of judgments including O.A. Nos. 060/405/2021, 060/407/2021, 060/413/2021, 060/427/2021, and others, wherein officers similarly situated were granted retrospective promotions with all consequential benefits.
30. In the facts of the present case, the applicant's exclusion from the notification dated 07.04.2021 is, therefore, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Tribunal is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to all consequential benefits, including appointment to the IPS Punjab Cadre NEERU DOUGALL 2025.10.16 17:10:52+05'30' 16 (OA No. 453/2023) with effect from the due date of the 2010 vacancies, along with pay, allowances, seniority, and retirement benefits as if the promotion had taken place in 2010.
31. Accordingly, the present Original Application is allowed.
The respondents are directed to issue a corrigendum to Notification No. 1-14011/22/2020-IPS.IE (1)(b) dated 07.04.2021, or a fresh notification, including the applicant's name at serial number 2 in the Select List of 2010. The applicant shall be deemed to have been appointed to the IPS Punjab Cadre w.e.f. the due date of the 2010 vacancies, with all consequential benefits, including pay, allowances, seniority, and retirement benefits. The relevant directions be carried out within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
32. There shall be no order as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
ND*
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.10.16 17:10:52+05'30' 17 (OA No. 453/2023) NEERU DOUGALL 2025.10.16 17:10:52+05'30'