LexSTATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS versus ADUP TSHERING BHUTIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 2 S.C.R. 1003 ,
STATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS
v.
ADUP TSHERING BHUTIA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 2446 of 2014)
FEBRUARY 18, 2014
[H L. GOKHALE AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.]
A
B
Sikkim Police Force (Recruitment, Promotion and
Seniority) Rules, 2000: r. 9(iv) - Integration of services - Three
different services viz. Police Force, Armed Police and C
Vigilance Police in the State of Sikkim - In Vigilance Police
and Armed Police, though the members therein got
accelerated promotion to the post of inspector, there was no
further promotion available to them - Promotion to the post
of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) available only to
D
members of the Police Force - This inequality sought to be
remedied by integration of three services - The feeder
category for promotion to the post of DSP is inspector - Date
of promotion/direct recruitment to the post of sub-inspector
taken as determining factor for fixation of seniority for the
E
purpose of promotion to the post of DSP and grant of
deemed/notional promotion to the members of the Police
Force from the date their compeers in the other two services
got promotion to the post of inspector - Writ petition by
respondent alleging that on account of the retrospective
promotion granted to the members of the Police Force based
on the date of appointment/promotion as sub-inspector in the
case of the other two services, the respondent became junior
to them, affecting his chances of promotion to the post of DSP
F
- High Court allowed writ petition - Held: High Court patently G
erred in holding that the acquired or accrued rights of the writ
petitioner had been affected by the fixation of seniority at the
level of sub-inspector of Police - The very purpose of
integration was to remove the inequality and provide them with
1003
H
1004
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 2 S.C.R.
A the opportunity for promotion to the post of DSP - If length of
continuous service in the highest cadre of some similar
services is taken as basis of fixing seniority and for further
promotion that would certainly result in deeper injustice to the
members of the other services - r. 9(iv) is just, fair and
B equitable in the given circumstances without which the
integration of services would have resulted in graver inequality
and injustice to the members of the major service - The
impugned judgment is set aside - However, for doing
complete justice, being a solitary case, the benefits granted
c by the High Court in the impugned Judgment to the writ
petitioner shall not be disturbed - Service law.
Prior to the constitution of integrated Sikkim Police
Force w.e.f. 11.09.2000, there were three different services
viz. Sikkim Police Force, Sikkim Armed Police and Sikkim
D Vigilance Police in the State of Sikkim. All the three forces
were governed by separate service rules. There was entry
level of constable in all the three forces. The Sikkim
Vigilance and Sikkim Armed Forces ended with the cadre
of inspector. In the case of Sikkim Armed Police there was
E also 50% direct recruitment at the level of sub-inspector.
Promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police
was available only to the Sikkim Police Force. The posts
of Deputy Superintendent of Police in Sikkim Vigilance
Police and Sikkim Armed Police were filled up only by
F deputation. The personnel belonging to the Sikkim
Vigilance Police and Sikkim Armed Police had been
raising their grievances with regard to lack of promotion
beyond inspector of police at various levels. The State
Government framed
the Sikkim
Police Force
G {Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority) Rules, 2000 under
Article 309 of the Constitution of India consisting of posts
upto inspector in all the three forces whereby seniority
and retrospective promotion was granted notionally to
the members of pre-integrated Sikkim Police Force.
H
STATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS v. ADUP TSHERING1005
BHUTIA AND OTHERS
The respondent had joined Sikkim Police as a
A
Constable on 12.08.1974. He was absorbed in the Sikkim
Vigilance Police on 12.09.1978. He was promoted as sub-
inspector on 22.12.1986 and was further promoted as
inspector on 26.09.1995. On account of the retrospective
promotion granted to the members of the Sikkim Police
B
Force based on the date of appointment/promotion as
sub-inspector in the case of the other two services, the
respondent became junior to them, affecting his chances
of promotion to the pExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.