Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Naresh Kumar vs Union Of India Through Its on 7 February, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.3271 of 2002 Reserved on : 20th December, 2011 Date of decision : 7th February, 2012 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. (MRS) VEENA CHHOTRAY, MEMBER (A) Naresh Kumar, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, R/o Sector 3, House No.535, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022. Applicant ( By Shri G. D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate and with him Shri Medhanshu Tripathi, Advocate ) Versus 1. Union of India through its Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (DOP&T), Government of India, New Delhi. 3. Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi. 4. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi. Respondents ( By Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, Advocate, for GNCTD ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
The matter herein, which pertains to the year 2002, is indeed the oldest pending in this Tribunal. The interim orders passed from time would reflect the reasons as to why finalization of this case has been delayed, and need not be mentioned in this order, but for the one, which is relevant and to which we shall advert to hereinafter. Even though the Original Application was filed in the year 2002, it came to be amended on 04.08.2009. We may extract the bare minimum facts that may need necessary mention at this stage for the ultimate orders that we are going to pass, from the amended Application only.
2. The applicant is a Deputy Commissioner of Police rank officer on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs.14300-400-18300 of the Delhi, Andamans & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman & Diu and Dadra & Nagar Haveli Police Service (for short, DANILDDDNHPS). His willingness for appointment into Indian Police Service (IPS) was asked for in the Deputy Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police rank in the pay scale of Rs.10000-325-12500 under rule 9 of IPS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 and IPS (Pay) Rules, 1954. The applicant joined the erstwhile Delhi, Anadmans & Nicobar Islands Police Service (formerly DANIPS) with effect from 01.07.1977. The respondents vide letter dated 03.08.2000 and wireless message dated 19.11.2001, sought unconditional willingness of the applicant for appointment to IPS Arunachal, Goa, Mizoram & Union Territories (hereinafter to be referred as AGMU) cadre in Deputy Commissioner of Police Rank. It is the case of the applicant that the Government had equated Deputy Commissioner of Police rank (Group A) of DANIDDDNHPS in the pay scale of Rs.14300-18300 with Assistant Commissioner of Police (Group B) in the pay scale of Rs.8000-275-10500 for promotion to the IPS as Deputy Commissioner of Police/ Superintendent of Police. It is further his case that he is Deputy Commissioner of Police rank officer, working as unit in-charge as well as supervisory, controlling and ACR recording/reviewing officer of the ACP/Dy. Supdt. of Police officer, and that he is not similarly circumstanced in the same class of the Service and cannot be treated alike, and further that he has been equated with ACP but would not fall within the same class or unit of service, and would be in distinct and different class of the Service, and pooling or classifying him together would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The applicant, it appears, earlier in point of time filed OA No.245/2001 along with others, in which they were asked to make representation, which in turn was directed to be disposed of by the respondents. The representation aforesaid came to be rejected vide a detailed order dated 02.12.2002. In the representation the applicant had inter alia asked for amendment of DANIPS Rules to create posts from DIG to DGP level in the Service. The detailed order rejecting the representation of the applicant, reads as follows:
Subject: Representation made in pursuance of Honble CAT, Delhis order dated 4th April, 2002 in OA Np.245/2001.
Sir, I am directed to refer to your representation dated the 10th April, 2002 submitted in pursuance of orders dated 4th April, 2001 of the Honble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.245/2001 Shri A. A. Farooqui and others Vs. Union of India and to say that the Government, after a careful examination of the said representation, have decided to reject the said representation, in light of the circumstances indicated below:
(a) The demand that the NCT of Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman & Diu and Dadra & Nagar Haveli Police Service Rules (for short DANIPS Rules) may be amended to create posts from DIG to DGP level in the Service has a direct implication of creating in the Union Territories a police service parallel to the Indian Police Service. This is repugnant to the Constitutional scheme under which the All India Services, including Indian Police Service, has been established. The main objective of establishment of an All India Service is to provide a Service common for both the Union and the States so that a healthy bridge is established between the Union and the States under the federal structure of the country. This important purpose shall be defeated if a State decides to elevate its local police service to the stature of Indian Police Service as it will be only at the expense of posts to be manned by IPS officers. It has also to be reckoned with that the NCT of Delhi, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman & Diu and Dadra & Nagar Haveli Police Service (for short DANIPS) like any other Central Group B Service was created to man posts at the middle management level and the members of the Service do not, therefore, have any right to press for inclusion of senior posts in the Service especially as the entire scheme of recruitment to the Service is designed to meet the requirement at middle management level only. It has also to be reckoned with that the Government in order to remove stagnation in DANIPS have recently introduced a new Grade in the scale of pay of Rs.14,300-18,300/- in consequence of which the pay and grade structure DANIPS has been brought at par with the pay and grade structure in other organized Central Group B Services.
(b) It has been contended that the anomalies in the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 (more particularly rule 2(g)(i) of the said Rules); the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (more particularly section 2(1)(j)(i) of the said Rules); and the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 (more particularly rule 3 of the said Regulations) may be removed.
In rule 2(g)(i) of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 and section 2(1)(j)(i) of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, the Delhi and Andaman & Nicobar Islands Police Service has been listed as one of the feeder service from which promotions to the AGMU Cadre of IPS shall be made. You have contended that as the Delhi and Andaman & Nicobar Police Service has now been extended to cover the Union Territories of Lakshadweep, Daman & Diu and Dadra & Nagar Haveli also and designated as the NCT of Delhi, A&N Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman & Diu and Dadra & Nagar Haveli Police Service its continuance as the feeder service for promotion to AGMU cadre is illegal as the said Service is no longer in existence. While the aforesaid provisions need to be suitably amended, it is only a technical omission which does not vitiate the process of promotion to AGMU cadre of IPS. This is particularly so as till date none of the officers inducted in the Service from Union Territories of Lakshadweep, Daman & Diu and Dara & Nagar Haveli have been included in the eligibility lists for promotion to IPS. It is also not your case that the officers of the NCT of Delhi, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman & Diu and Dadra & Nagar Haveli Police Service should not be promoted to IPS.
Rule 3 of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 provides for fixation of seniority of officers promoted to the Indian Police Service. The representation made by you does not contain any material to show how the said rule (which is applicable to all the State Police Services and not confined to DANIPS alone) suffers from any deficiency that would warrant its amendment. Even if, for the sake of argument, there is any such deficiency, it is open to you to make a suitable representation after you become the member of IPS.
(c) In terms of 3rd proviso to section 5(2) of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, it has been provided that a member of the State Police Service shall not be eligible to be considered for appointment to the Indian Police service unless he has, inter alia, completed not less than 8 years of continuous service (whether officiating or substantive) in the post of Dy. Superintendent of Police or in any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the State Government. The requirement under the law therefore is that an officer in order to be eligible for appointment to IPS should have put in at least 8 years continuous service in the post of Dy. Superintendent of Police of equivalent. This does not exclude an officer of a State Police Service who had put in a higher number of years of service or holds a post higher in rank than that of Dy. Superintendent of Police from being considered for promotion to IPS. The point raised by you that the Dy. Superintendent of Police/Assistant Commissioner of Police should not be clubbed with Junior Administrative Grade officers of the Service in the eligibility list for promotion to IPS is, therefore, without any merit.
(d) You have represented that the members of DANIPS on promotion to IPS should not suffer any loss in terms of (a) increments of pay; (b) reduction in rank; (c) and badges of rank. The manner in which the pay of a State Police Service officer on promotion to IPS is required to be fixed is prescribed under Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules, 1954. The said Rules essentially provide for protection of pay last drawn by the officer of the State Police Service on promotion to IPS. However, these do not protect the annual increments he would have drawn if he continued to serve the State Police Service. It is in these circumstances for the officers selected for promotion to decide whether it is in their long term interest to accept the promotion to IPS or not. There is no compulsion that a member of the Service should necessarily express his willingness to be appointed to IPS.
There is also no merit in the plea for protection of rank on promotion to IPS. In fact, there is no loss of rank involved. The posts of the rank of Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police have been included in the Junior Administrative Grade of the DANIPS as also in the AGMU Cadre of IPS. There is no post lower in rank than that of Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police in the IPS nor there is any post higher than that of Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police encadred in DANIPS; hence, there is no loss of rank involved on promotion of DANIPS officer to IPS. The plea made is in fact totally misconceived as it is apparently based on the assumption that as a JAG officer of DANIPS carries a higher scale of pay than admissible to a Senior Time Scale of IPS, the former is senior in rank to the latter. This is not so as functionally the post of Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police carries the same charter of duties and responsibilities irrespective of whether it is held by an IPS or DANIPS officer. The demand is also based on the misconception that some of the officers in the Junior Administrative Grade of DANIPS having been posted ad Deputy Commissioner of Police in Delhi Police, their promotion to IPS in which their pay is fixed in the Senior Time Scale entails a loss of rank. It needs to be clarified that the post of Deputy Commissioner of Police is not encadred in DANIPS and it is only under a local arrangement that Delhi Police have posted some of the members of DANIPS as Deputy Commissioners of Police on ex-cadre basis.
The demand for protection of badges of rank on promotion to IPS is equally misconceived. There are no statutory rules to regulate the wearing of badges by the members of DANIPS. However, the details about the badges etc. to be worn by DNIPS officers are indicated in the offer of appointment made to the candidates selected by direct recruitment for appointment to the same. It provides that an officer of DANPS who has completed five years service and is in charge of a Sub-Division or is holding post of an equivalent status at the Police Headquarters shall be entitled to wear three stars. There are no other higher badges of rank prescribed for DANIPS. If they are wearing such higher badges on promotion to Selection Grade or Junior Administrative Grade of the Service it is without sanction of the Government and, therefore, invalid for the purpose of making any claim for protection of the badges of ranks. Further as the DANIPS and IPS are two different services there can be no comparison of the badges and ranks as between the two and especially so when what is protected is pay and nothing else. Additionally there is no compulsion on you to accept appointment to IPS and you can take an overall view of the advantages and disadvantages which will cover all issues such as there are.
(e) The vacancies covered under promotion quota in the AGMU cadre are calculated segment-wise and filled up from amongst eligible officers of the State Police Service concerned in respect to three constituent States and Arunachal Pradesh, Goa and Mizoram and from DANIPS and Pondicherry Police Service in case of U.T. Segment. This is in conformity with the Explanation given under section 5(1) of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 which provides that in case of joint cadres a separate Select List shall be prepared in respect of each State Police Service. The position being so, it will constitute a violation of the statutory provisions if the officers eligible to be considered for promotion under the 3rd proviso to the aforesaid section 5(1) are excluded from consideration only on the ground that the officers eligible for promotion against vacancies in some other Constituent-segment hold higher posts. The plea that it should be ensured that only the officers of same and equivalent rank from the feeder State Police Services are considered for promotion to AGMU cadre of IPS is, therefore, without any merit.
(f) It has been contended that the 5th Central Pay Commission had, inter alia, recommended creation of 27 posts in the scale of pay of Rs.14,300-18,300 and to make this new Grade as functional with effect from the 1st January, 1996 and that the said recommendation was accepted by the Government vide notification dated 30th September, 1997. It needs to be in the first place clarified that the Government notification dated 30th September, 1997 does not make any such stipulation. In fact, the recommendation made by the 5th Central Pay Commission in regard to pay and grade structure of DANIPS including the creation of new grade in the scale of pay of Rs.14,300-18,300/- was accepted by the Government only in October, 2000 and the orders to this effect were issued vide MHAs letter dated the 30th October, 2000. It was, however, decided, in departure from the recommendation made by the 5th Central Pay Commission, to declare the said newly introduced Grade as non-functional and to consist of 10 per cent of the sanctioned strength of posts in the Service. There is in any case no merit in declaring the newly introduced Grade in scale of pay of Rs.14,300-18,300/- as functional for the reason that the senior post of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above fall within the purview of Indian Police Service as stipulated in the scheme under which IPS was constituted.
(g) You had sought the opportunity to be heard personally by the Cadre Controlling Authority to explain your grievances. This was examined and you were advised to appear before a designated officer to explain your grievances. This offer was, however, rejected by you vide your letter dated the 30th September, 2002 on the ground that you wanted to explain the grievances to the Union Home Minister alone and not to any authority subordinate to him as you have no faith and expectation of justice from any bureaucrat in MHA. The position taken by you is totally unjustified and is unbecoming of a servant and it has, therefore, been decided to reject the same.
2. In case you are willing to be considered for appointment to the IPS, you should furnish the following declarations within 10 days of issue of this communication, failing which it will be presumed that you are not interested in being considered or appointment to IPS:
(i) Unconditional willingness for appointment to the IPS;
(ii) Declaration of having only one spouse living; and
(iii) Consent for termination of lien in the NCT of Delhi, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman & Diu and Dadara & Nagar Haveli Police Service after your substantive appointment to IPS.
3. Be it the amended or the unamended OA, one of the reliefs asked for is naturally to set aside the order dated 02.12.2002. The other reliefs asked for, as may emanate from the amended OAm read as follows:
II. To create posts in higher ranks uptil the level from DIG/Addl. CP to Director General of Police in DANILDDDNHPS, by suitably amending the DANILDDDNHPS Rules.
III. To remove anomalies in the IPS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, more particularly Rules 2(g)(i), IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, more particularly Regulations 2(j)(i), 5(2) third proviso and IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988, more particularly Rules 3 i.e., GSR 737(E), dated 31st December, 1997 published in Gazette of India Extra, Part II, 3(i), dated 31st December, 1997 (1st January, 1998).
IV. to ensure that Deputy Superintendent of Police/ Assistant Commissioner of Police, Grade II and I, are not clubbed with Junior Administrative Grade Deputy Commissioners of Police rank in DANILDDDNHPS for being considered for promotion to IPS.
V. Direct the respondents to consider the applicant for induction in the Indian Police Service (AGMUT Cadre) and upon his selection grant him the pay scale 9with the same increments as applicable), grade, rank, which as already been reached by the applicant, i.e., Deputy Commissioner of Police w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and senior DCP/DIG in DANIPS w.e.f. 25.6.2001 in the pay scale of Rs.14,300-400-18,300/-.
V(a) That this Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to declare that the provisions of Rule 3(3)(ii) of the IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 is ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as while counting the seniority for the purposes of grant of year of allotment, for holding the higher rank and discharging higher responsibilities, the incumbents of State Police Service get lesser weightage as compared to their juniors.
V(b) That this Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the IPS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, more particularly Rule 2(g)(i) & (ii), Rule 4(b) and Rule 9 read with Regulation 2(j) and 3rd proviso of Regulation 5(2) of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 inasmuch as the same treat unequals as equals and treat a Sr. S.P./DCP rank officer as equivalent with Deputy S.P./A.C.P. rank officer for consideration for promotion to IPS.
VI To ensure that there is o loss of monetary benefits such as increments, reduction in rank and rank badges of the Applicants on their joining the IPS.
VII To ensure that only officers of the same/equivalent rank from the feeder State Police Services of the IPS-AGMUT Cadre are considered for promotion to IPS.
VIII Direct the respondents to furnish information as requested in para 5 & 6 of their representation dated 10th April, 2002 which has not been supplied by the respondents in their reply.
IX Direct the respondents to supply a copy of Notification of IPS (Select List-2000) AGMU Cadre in which applicants candidature is still valid as per Honble Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhis order dated 4th April, 2002 in O.A. No.245/2001.
4. We may now advert to one of the reasons why the finalization of this matter has been delayed. When the matter came up for hearing before us on 05.04.2010, we were given to understand by the learned Senior Advocate Shri G. D. Gupta that a similar matter is pending consideration before the Honble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No.6/2010 in the matter of Z. U. Siddiqui & others v Union of India & others. Reference was made to the order passed by the Honble Supreme Court dated 01.01.2010, which reads as follows:
We have requested learned Solicitor General of India to appear in the matter. Having glanced through the petition, he assures us that he will have the issue raised in the petition, examined by the concerned Ministry and if possible come out with an amicable solution.
List immediately after four weeks. Rest of the order that we passed on 05.04.2010, reads as follows:
2. Mrs. Jyoti singh, counsel defending the respondents, states that she is not sure as to whether the controversy involved in present case is the same as the subject matter of decision of Honble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No.6/2010. Mr. Gupta, learned senior counsel will give a copy of the Writ Petition (C) No.6/2010 to Mrs. Jyoti Singh, counsel defending the respondents by tomorrow.
3. List the matter on 23.04.2010. if the learned counsel are ad idem that the outcome of Writ Petition (C) No.6/2010 would have some bearing upon the controversy in the present case, this Tribunal may consider postponing hearing of this matter awaiting decision of Honble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No.6/2010, otherwise the matter will proceed and be decided on merits. The matter thereafter was adjourned on a couple of occasions, but when it came up for hearing before us on 20.08.2010, we recorded the following order:
Mr. Gupta, learned senior counsel representing the applicants, states that the writ petition, referred to in Tribunals order dated 05.04.2010, has not so far been decided and the same is listed for hearing in the month of September, 2010.
In view of the circumstances, as mentioned above, we adjourn these two cases sine die with liberty to apply. It appears that there was no application for revival, but a direction came to be given by one of us (V. K. Bali, Chairman) on administrative side to list all old matters for hearing, and the present matter came to be listed on 12.08.2011, when we passed the following order:
This is one of the oldest matters pending with the Tribunal. Counsel for applicant states that since he has recently been engaged in this case, he needs some time to prepare the case. Reluctantly, we are adjourning the case to 26.08.2011 by making it absolutely clear that no further adjournment shall be given. The matter was adjourned once again on a couple of occasions, and when it came up before us for hearing on 21.10.2011, we recorded the following order:
This order be read in continuation of our earlier order dated 05.04.2010. More than 1= year has gone by, but it appears that the matter has so far not been disposed of by Honble Supreme Court. In these circumstances, we are considering as to whether this matter should be closed at this stage with liberty to the applicant to file fresh one which would not involve any limitation after decision of Supreme Court, Mr. Gupta would suggest otherwise and endeavour to convince us that we should proceed to decide this case even though similar controversy the Supreme Court is seized of. This matter be listed for hearing on 04.11.2011. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted in the matter. Order dated 21.10.2011 would show that even though when the matter was adjourned sine die, it was thought expedient to take up the same only after the Apex Court may take a final call in the issue involved in the present case, but the order aforesaid would show that the learned counsel representing the applicant would like to address arguments for final decision of the matter by this Tribunal. There were once again couple of adjournments, when arguments were finally heard in the matter on 20.12.2011 and judgment reserved. Learned counsel representing the applicant handed over to the Court Officer some written arguments also on 23.12.2011. Eversince then, we have been pondering as to whether we should take a final decision in the matter when the controversy involved in the present case is awaiting adjudication by the highest Court of the land. The order dated 05.04.2010 would reflect that it was the view of the applicant as well that we should await decision of the Supreme Court, and it is for that precise reason that the matter was adjourned sine die, and the applicant would file no application for its revival, and as mentioned above, the matter came to be listed for hearing only on a general order passed on administrative side to list all such cases which may be earlier to the year 2009; the applicant had shown no interest in disposal of the matter. The order aforesaid would also be reflective of the fact that even though as per the view of the applicant as well the issue involved in the present case and the one before the Apex Court would be common, but, as once again reflected from the order, the learned counsel representing the respondents would not be sure of the same. On the date when the judgment was reserved as also on earlier occasions, we had asked Mr. Gupta, learned Sr. Advocate as to why this matter be not closed awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court, and that if there may be some issues or reliefs as may not be determined by the Supreme Court, the same could be agitated by filing a fresh petition, which would not involve any limitation, the counsel would want this Tribunal to deal with the issue involved in the case and determine the same. As mentioned above, we have pondered over for long, as the judgment was reserved on 20.12.2011, and we proceed to close this matter at this stage, after an interregnum of more than a month. We have indeed pondered over the issue over and over again, and have come to the conclusion that no useful purpose would be served in deciding the issue on merits as the matter is receiving attention at the highest level, and it is that decision which will bind all the courts and tribunals. The law declared by the Honble Supreme Court, as per provisions of Article 141 of the constitution, is binding upon all courts and tribunals. Surely, if we determine the issue, one or the other party is likely to challenge our decision first in the High Court and in the Supreme Court as well. We are quite sanguine that before this matter is decided by us and may come to be ultimately disposed of by the High Court, the Honble Supreme Court would have definitely decided the issue by then. The order to be passed by the High Court would only be the same as may be passed by the Apex Court.
Having applied our mind, we are of the view that it would be more in the fitness of things that the decision of the Honble Supreme Court is awaited. The only adverse effect of closing this Original Application may be that the interim orders that have been passed may sink with the final decision of the case, but once the interim directions have continued for over a decade without any protestation on behalf of the respondents to vacate the same, and when the applicant may be at the fag end of his career, the interim protection given to him can be continued till such time the matter is determined by the Supreme Court. The applicant was given interim protection vide order dated 07.01.2003 which is continuing till date. Relevant part of the order dated 07.01.2003 reads as follows:
This is the second round of litigation as the applicants had earlier filed OA 245/2001, which was disposed of by previous order dated 4.4.2002. In pursuance of that order, the respondents have passed a speaking order disposing of the representations as submitted by the applicants. Learned counsel for applicants has prayed that the earlier interim order dated 25.5.2001 in OA No.245/2001 read with MA 1161/2001 may be continued, even though in the final order passed by the tribunal in that OA, the respondents were also restrained not to insist upon the undertaking given by the applicants till the representations were disposed of, as mentioned above. Learned counsel has prayed that the earlier interim order that the respondents should not insist upon the undertaking may be continued till the final disposal of this OA, as according to them, the applicants are aggrieved by the speaking order issued by the respondents dated 2.12.2002.
Issue notice to the respondents returnable in fur weeks. Thereafter two weeks for rejoinder.
List before the Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings on 27.2.2003.
In the above facts and circumstances of the case, issue DASTI notice to the respondents on interim relief to file their reply within three weeks. List before court for hearing on interim relief on 29.1.2003. On 29.01.2003, a direction came to be issued that the respondents would not take any action against the applicant. Mr. Gupta would also state that even though some financial upgradations have been given to the applicant during pendency of the OA, but the applicant may be entitled to more. We may not comment anything on that count, as there does not appear to be any prayer made even in the amended OA on that count, even though it is the case of the applicant that the Tribunal may ensure that there is no loss of monetary benefits to the applicant such as increments, reduction in rank and rank badges on his joining the IPS. Be that as it may, even if there may be some reliefs, which may not be subject matter of dispute before the Supreme Court, the applicant, in our view, can ask for them in a fresh petition after the Supreme Court may determine the controversy, and further that the interim protection can be continued till such time the Apex Court may finally decide the case pending before it.
6. In totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we will close this Original Application at this stage. The interim protection given to the applicant would, however, continue till such time the Supreme Court may take a final call on the issue in a writ directly filed before it under Article 32of the Constitution. If there may be some reliefs that may not be covered by the decision of the Honble Supreme Court, the applicant would be at liberty to file a fresh Application, which would not be dismissed on the plea of limitation.
7. Before we may part with this order, we may, however, mention that the interim directions have resulted into non-induction of the applicant into IPS, and how it is advantageous to him, is not understandable to us. We are nobody to guide the course to be adopted by the applicant, but as we have been suggesting during the course of hearing of this case, we would like to say that it would have been better for the applicant to accept his induction into IPS and clamour for protection of his pay and status. We would not give a final opinion, but it appears to us that the applicant would not accept his induction into IPS, and would rather ask stay against the same for the reason that he may not be wanting to leave Delhi, which ought to have been the outcome of induction into IPS. However, as mentioned above, as the interim directions do not appear to us to be causing any advantage to the applicant except for his stay in Delhi, and the applicant, as mentioned above, may be having only a year or so left of his service, and when the interim directions have been continuing for such a long time, there would be no harm if the same are continued till such time, as mentioned above, the Honble Supreme Court may decide the matter.
8. This Original Application is thus closed with the liberty, as mentioned above.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/