M.P. SINGH BARGOTI versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 211 · Decided: 27-11-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

•• 
(2014) 11 S.C.R. 211 
M.P. SINGH BARGOTI 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3906 of 2009) 
NOVEMBER 27, 2014 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law: Promotion from the post of Inspector to 
Deputy Superintendent of Police - Tribunal's direction in 
cases fifed by others and also in case fifed by the appellant c 
along with others for preparation of a Combined Gradation List 
for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police 
and to include names of all those who were petitioners before 
the Tribunal - In subsequent case also, the Tribunal re-
affirmed the said directions passed in earlier case and upheld 
0 
the Combined Gradation List - Recruitment Rules amended 
and in view thereof fresh Gradation List prepared which was 
admittedly only for Inspectors still in service - Appellant's 
junior promoted w.e.f. the date when appellant was stiff in 
service - Appellant did not challenge the Gradation List of E 
2000 because his claim was only on the basis of unamended 
rules - Appellant retired in 1998 while holding the post of 
inspector - Application by appellant dismissed by Tribunal 
- High Court upheld the same - Held: Despite directions 
passed by Tribunal, a Combined Gradation List was not 
prepared at the appropriate time and ultimately when it was 
prepared to show compliance with the order of the Tribunal, it 
was never acted upon because the subsequent directions of 
the Tribunal for amendment of rules was preferred by the 
State and the claim of the appellant was never considered till 
F 
he was in service - Appellant's junior promoted w.e.f date 
G 
when the appellant was still in service - Tribunal and the High 
Court erred in denying relief to the appellant - Appellant 
entitled to notional promotion w.e.f date his junior was 
211 
H 
212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. • 
A promoted -
Madhya Pradesh Police (Gazetted Officers) 
Recruitment Rules, 1987. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The reason for not promoting the appellant 
B and some others like him appointed on the post of 
Inspector on 29.05.1981 was indicated to be non-
inclusion in the Combined Gradation List. One 'VND' 
appointed on the post of Inspector in 1983 was 
admittedly promoted w.e.f. 29.05.1997 and on that date 
c the appellant was still in service. There is no dispute that 
despite directions passed since 15.06.1993 by the 
Tribunal and lastly reiterated in the case of the appellant 
on 11.03.1998, a Combined Gradation List was not 
prepared at the appropriate time and ultimately when it 
0 was prepared to show compliance with the order of the 
Tribunal, it was never acted upon because the 
subsequent directions of the Tribunal for amendment of 
rules was preferred by the State and the claim of the 
appellant was never considered by the Departmental 
Promotion Committee till he was in service or even 
E thereafter when person like 'VND' who was junior to the 
appellant in the Combined Gradation List was considered 
allegedly on the basis of another subsequent gradation 
list and promoted with effect from a date when the 
appellant was still in service. The Tribunal and the High 
F Court erred in law as well as on facts in denying relief to 
the appellant. The position would have been different if 
appellant's junior had been promoted from a date 
subsequent to his superannuation. Then appellant would 
have suffered only on account of passage of time or 
G innocuous delay but in the present facts he has suffered 
hostile and arbitrary discrimination vis-a-vis a junior. The 
order under appeal is therefore set aside. Since the 
,appellant was in service only till 31.03.1998, he is held 
entitled to notional promotion to the post of Deputy 
H Superintendent of Police w.e.f. 29.05.1997 till 31.03.1998. 
• 
M.P. SINGH BARGOTI v. STATE OF MADHYA 
213 
PRADESH 
He will be deemed to have superannuated on that post 
A 
and shall be given all the post retirement benefits by re-
calculating the same. [Paras 7, 9 and 10] [217-F-G; 218C-
H; 219-A] 
. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
B 
3906 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 15.10.2007 of the High 
Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ 
Petition No. 4449 of 2001. 
Shyam Moorjani, Shantanu Bhardwaj, Vishal Arun for the 
Appellant. 
' 
Sunny Chowdhry, Mishra Saurabh, Ankit Lal for the 
c 
Respondent. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. This app

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.