·A
TECH. EXECUTIVE (ANTI POLLUTION) WELFARE
,
ASSOCIATION
v.
COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT DEPT. AND ANR.
B
MARCH 10, 1997
-[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.)
Service law :
C
Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 :
Promotio11-Technical Anti Pollution level Test l11spectors-C/aiming
promotion as Motor vehicle Inspectors-<.:entral Administrative Tribunal
givi11g direction to Government to create posts and provide suitable promo-
D tional avenues-Mea11while Junior Motor Vehicle Inspectors promoted as
Motor Vehicle Inspectors-Government turned down the proposal for creation
of avenues for promotion to Technical A11ti-Pol/ution Level Test Inspec-
tors-<.:onternpt petition dismissed by TribunaHield, under the Motor
Vehicles Act, Cadre of Motor Vehicles Inspectors has statutory base-Motor
Vehicles inspectors are disti11ct from T A.P.L. T.-The latter can not have any
E parity with statuto'5' Cadre Officers-Tribunal is not competent to give direc-
tions to lay down the policy or to issue directions to create promotional
avenues-It would be for the appropriate government to take policy
decision-Tribunal was right in rejecting contempt petition-Contempt.
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1988-90
of 1997.
From the Judgment and order dated 17.7.96 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. Nos. 2193/91, 3199/92 and 1329
G of 1993.
M.N. Krishnamani, R. D. Upadhyay for the Appellant.
Subhash Chandra Jain for the Respondents.
H
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
920
TECH. EXECUTIVE (ANTI POLLUTION) WELFARE ASSN. v. COMMR. OFTPT. DEPTT.
921
Leave granted.
In view of the. explanation given in the application for restoration
of special leave petitions dismissed on 11th December, 1996 for default
of non appearance of the counsel, although the case was called out
twice, the order is recalled.
A
B
We have heard the counsel on merit. The appellant Association
claims promotions of Pollution Level Test Inspectors on par with Motor
vehicles Inspectors under the Motor Vehicles Act. Pursuant to a repre-
sentation made by the appellant to open a channel of promotion to
them, the Tribunal by order dated April 24, 1992 had directed the C
respondents to create posts and provide suitable promotional avenues
and to set time for the said purpose. In the meanwhile, when the Junior
Motor Vehicles Inspectors were being considered for promotion by the
D.P.C. as Motor Vehicle Inspectors, the appellant filed a petition in the
Tribunal for implementation of the Judgment and pointing out the D
contempt. Since the respondents, in the meanwhile, promoted Motor
Vehicle Inspectors, the appellant filed the application stating that the
respondents had violated the order of the Tribunal. In the meanwhile,
the Government have turned down the proposal for creation of the
avenues for promotion of Anti Poliution Level Test Inspectors. The
appellant again filed a petition for contempt which was dismissed. Thus
this appeal by special leave.
E
It would be seen that, admittefdly, members of the appellant·
Association are Technical Anti-Pollution Level Test Inspectors. Under F
the Motor Vehicles Act, the cadre of Motor Vehicles Inspectors has
statutory based and, therefore, the Motor Vehicle Inspectors are dis-
tinct from T.A.P.L.T. Inspectors represented through the appellant-As-
sociation. When we had put a question to Shri Krishnamani, learned
senior counsel, whether the appellants are entitled to claim under the G
statutory rules, to be on par with Junior Motor Vehicle Inspectors, he
admitted that they are not members of the same cadre or service and
are not governed by the Rules. Therefore, they cannot have any parity
with a statutory cadre officers. It would be for the appropriate Govern-
ment to take policy decision. The Tribunal is not competent to give H
922
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1997] 2 S.C.R.
A directions to lay down the policy or to issue directions to create promo-
tional avenues. Such a direction, would amount to entrenching upon area
of policy making which is exclusively within the purview of the appropriate
Government. The Tribunal, therefore, was right in rejecting the application
and holding that there was no contempt.
B
The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
R.P.
Appeals dismissed.
Lex