SHAMSHER SINGH SANDHU versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1024 · Decided: 14-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1024
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
SHAMSHER SINGH SANDHU
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2020)
JANUARY 14, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD
AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Service Law – Promotion to the rank of Inspector General of
Police – Claim of – The order of promotion was granted to the
appellant to the rank of IG until he was reverted to the rank of DIG
– The order of reversion was stayed by the High Court – Thereafter,
both Single Judge and, in appeal, the Division Bench of the High
Court rejected the plea of the appellant to substantive promotion to
the rank of IG – The Supreme Court directed maintenance of status
quo – The appellant continued to work as an IG rank officer until
the date of his superannuation – The appellant sought retiral benefits
as an IG rank officer and also sought liberty to pursue his remedies
for promotion to the post of Additional DGP – Held: In exercise of
jurisdiction u/Art. 142, the retiral dues of the appellant be computed
and released on the basis that he has retired from service in the
substantive rank of an IG – However, having perused the record,
particularly the report of the Medical Board which was constituted
finally in pursuance of the directions of the High Court, no further
directions for the consideration of the case of appellant to the rank
of Additional DGP to be issued – The appellant’s claim for promotion
as Additional DGP is in consequence not accepted.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellant continued to work, pursuant to
the order of promotion that was granted to him to the rank of IG
until he was reverted to the rank of DIG. The order of reversion
was passed without the issuance of a notice to show cause and
without furnishing any opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
During the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court,
the order of reversion was stayed. Then again, when the
proceedings came before this Court upon the dismissal of the
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1024
1024
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1025
Writ Petition as well as the Letters Patent Appeal, this Court
directed the maintenance of status quo. The appellant, as a result
of the interim order passed by this Court, continued to work as
an IG rank officer until the date of his superannuation. He did so
for a period of nearly four years. [Para 8][1028-E-G]
2. Having regard to the above factual position, this Court
is of the view that the ends of justice would require a direction by
this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution, that the retiral dues of the appellant be computed
and released on the basis that he has retired from service in the
substantive rank of an IG. However, having perused the record,
particularly the report of the Medical Board which was constituted
finally in pursuance of the directions of the High Court, this Court
is not inclined to issue any further directions for the consideration
of the case of the appellant to the rank of Additional DGP and this
Court is of the view that the matter must rest there. The
appellant’s claim for promotion as Additional DGP is in
consequence not accepted. [Para 9][1028-G-H; 1029-A-B]
3. Direction that the retiral dues of the appellant shall be
computed and released to him within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order on the basis of
the position that he retired as an IG on 31 January 2016. The
sealed cover shall, in consequence, be returned to the
respondents. The appellant shall have no further claim for
promotion as an Additional DGP. [Para 10][1029-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 266 of
2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.2014 of the High Court
of  Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar in L.P.A. No. 08 of 2014.
P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Ms. Prerna Mehta,  Advs. for the Appellant.
Aman Lekhi, ASG, Anmol Chandan, T.A. Khan, Shirin Khajuria,
B.V. Balaram Das, Prakash Kumar Sinha, Rajeev Singh, Advs. for the
Respondents.
SHAMSHER SINGH SANDHU v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1026
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2 This appeal arises from a judgment and order of the High Court
of Jammu and Kashmir dated 29 October 2014 in a Letters Patent
Appeal1.
3. The dispute in the present case pertains to the claim of the
appellant for promotion to the rank of Inspector General of Police2. The
appellant was holding th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.