H. P. SCHEDULED TRIBES EMPLOYEES FEDERATION & ANR. versus HIMACHAL PRADESH S. V. K. K. & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 9 S.C.R. 384 · Decided: 13-09-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S. NIJJAR · Disposal: Case Allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 9 S.C.R. 384 
A 
H. P. SCHEDULED TRIBES EMPLOYEES FEDERATION 
&ANR. 
v. 
HIMACHAL PRADESH S. V. K. K. & ORS. 
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 6 OF 2012 
B 
IN 
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C.) NO. 30143 OF 2009 
SEPTEMBER 13, 2013 
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND 
c 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.) 
SERVICE LAW: 
ReseNation in promotion - Consequential seniority -
D 
Compliance of direction in M. Nagaraj's case - State of 
Himachal Pradesh issuing circulars dated 7.9.2007 and 
23.1.2010- Plea of State Government to await the finalization 
of 117th Constitution Amendment - Held: The material on 
record indicates the intention of the State not to comply with 
E 
the earlier decision to implement the policy of reseNation in 
promotions and the grant of consequential seniority - State 
Government, directed to take a final decision on the issue -
The proposed 117th Constitutional Amendment would not 
adversely affect the merits of the claim of petitioner, for grant 
F 
of promotion with consequential seniority. 
Practice and Procedure: 
Statement made by counsel before Court - Disposal of 
case accordingly -
Held: When a statement is made before 
G the court it is, as a matter of course, assumed that it is made 
sincerely and is not an effort to over-reach the court -
The 
statement by the counsel is not expected to be flippant, 
mischievous, misleading and certainly not false -
This 
confidence in statements made by the counsel is founded on 
H 
384 
H. P. SCHEDULED TRIBES EMPLOYEES FEDERATION v. 
385 
HIMACHAL PRADESH S. V. K K 
the assumption that the counsel is aware that he is an officer A 
of the,. court. 
On 7.9.2007, with a view to give effect to the 85th 
Amendment to the Constitution, the State of Himachal 
Pradesh issued instructions by letter No. PER (AP)-C-F 
8 
(1 )-1/2005, and thereby provided for assignment of 
consequential seniority to the members of Scheduled 
Castes and Scheduled Tribes in service under the State. 
The policy was to take effect from 17 .6.1995. The 
instructions were challenged by respondent No. 1 and 
the High Court by order dated 18.09.2009 relying upon M. 
C 
Nagaraj1, allowed the writ petition, and quashed the 
instructions dated 07.09.2007 as the State Government 
had issued the instructions without collecting the 
(quantifiable) data. The State Government by letter dated 
16.11.2009, rescinded the instructions dated 07 .09.2007. 
D 
The judgment of the High Court dated 18.09.2009 was 
. challenged in SLP (Civil) No. 30143 of 2009 by Himachal 
. Pradesh Schedules Tribes Employees Federation, and 
. Himachal Pradesh SC/ST Government Employees 
. Welfare Association. By order dated 26.04.2010, the 
E 
Supreme Court disposed of the SLP No. 30143 of 2009 
and the contempt petition No. 27 of 2010 on the 
undertaking given by the State to collect more details with 
regard to representation of SCs/STs and to pass 
appropriate orders. The State Government was stated to 
F 
have collected the necessary data. Thereafter I. A. No. 6 
was filed by the petitioner seeking a dii·ection to the State 
to take a decision on the issue of reservation on the basis 
of data already collected or submitted to Cabinet Sub 
Committee on 25.04.2011. The Court, by order dated 
G 
06.09.2012, directed the State Government to take the 
necessary policy decision on the question of providing 
reserv.ation to the members of Scheduled Castes and 
1. 
M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 336. 
H 
386 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 
A Scheduled Tribes in the matter of promotion in the 
services within the State. On 31.01.2013, the State 
directed that since the Constitution (117the Amendment) 
Bill, 2012 was pending consideration in Parliament, the 
matter regarding implementation of Constitution (85th 
B Amendment) Act, 2001 in the State may be deferred. On 
04.02.2013, the State Government sought modification of 
the restriction placed by the Court by order dated 
07 .01.2013, whereby the State was directed not to make 
any promotions. The State Government prayed that the 
c existing reservation· system in promotions be continued 
till the finalization of matter relating to the Constitution 
(117th Amendment) Bill, 2012. 
· 
Allowing the I. A., the Court 
D 
HELD: 1.1. The issue relates only to ensuring that the 
respondent-State implements its own decisions. The only 
excuse given by the State for not implementing its 
decision dated 31.01.2013 is the pendency of the 117th 
Amendment Bill
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.