THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE NEW DELHI & ORS. versus P.M. RAMALINGAM

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 623 · Decided: 25-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 623 
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CENTRAL 
RESERVE POLICE FORCE NEW DELHI & ORS. 
II. 
P.M. RAMALINGAM 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6755·6756 of 2008) 
NOVEMBER 25, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Interim order, passed in review petition - Relief granted C 
virtually amounted to allowing review petition ...,.. Held: Such 
course is not permissible in law. 
. 
The departmental proceedings were ihitiated against 
the respondent during 2000. At that time, he was serving 0 
in the rank of Commandant. He was not entitled to any 
promotion during the pendency of the departmental 
inquiry against him. The age of superannuation in the 
rank of Commandant being 57 years, respondent was 
required to superannuate during September 2008. 
E 
During the pendency of the Writ Appeal filed by the 
appellants, by virtue of interim orders of the High Court, 
respondent was promoted conditionally to the rank of 
Addi. DIG and DIG respectively. The High Court 
mentioned that such promotions were subject to the 
F . 
outcome of Writ Appeal. High Court allowed the writ 
appeal filed by appellants. Respondent filed SLPs which 
was dismissed. Respondent then filed review application. 
In the review application, plea essentially was to get his 
two promotions regularized which otherwise had been 
c$ 
accepted by the respondent for many years to be 
conditional. High Court passed interim order of status quo, 
permitting respondent fo continue to discharge his duties 
· as DIG beyond 30.9.2008. 
623 
H 
624 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 
A 
In ·appeals to this Court, appellants contended that 
the interim orders passed in review applic·ation were 
passed without deciding on the question of 
maintainabiiity of the review application. 
Dispo$irig of the appeals with certain directions, the 
8 
Court 
' 
· 
HELO: The High:-~ourt could not have passed the 
~· 
interim order which virtually means allowing the review 
petition, without deciding the question of maintainability 
c of the review petition. Such a course is not permissible 
in law. [Para 8] (627-0] 
· 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
6755-6756 of 2008. 
0 
-From the interim Order dated 18.3.2008 and 29.4.2008 
of the High Court of judicature at Madras in Review Application 
No. 42 of 2008 and M.P. No. 2 of2008 in Review Application 
No. 42 of 2008 in Writ Appeal No. 107 4 of 2004. 
P.S. Patwalia, V. Mahana, S.N. Terdol and Sushma Suri 
E 
for the Appellants. 
-
F 
R. Ramesh A Sumathi for the Respondent. 
The Judgment9f the Court was delivered by 
OR. ARIJIT'PASAYAT,.J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by 
the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in re~iew 
applicationno.42/2008, M.P. No .. 1/08 dated 18th March, 2008 
and M.P. No. 2/08 in review application no.42/08. Accordingly, 
G 
the respondent's review applicati9n was nothing but an abuse 
of the process of court as ~he :same relief which was turned 
down by this Court has been sought for in the review 
application. It is the case of the appellants that the High Court 
has passed the interim order ot'status quo:which would entitle 
H 
the respondent to enjoy the benefits of conditional promotion 
'
DIRECTOR GEN. OF POLICE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE625 
FORCl::NEWDELHlv.P.M.RAMALINGAM[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT,J.] 
as well as benefit of three years of extra service to which. he A 
was not entitled to. 
3. It is pointed out that the High Court allowed the writ 
appeal filed by the appellants granting liberty to proceed with 
departmental inquiry in accordance with law. The respondent 8 
fllecrSCP(C) 4552-4533/2008 specifically praying to restrain 
~· 
the department from reverting the respondent from the post of 
DIG to the post of Additional DIG and consequently to the post 
of Commandant. The aforesaid SLPs were mentioned on 
21.2.2008 and it was directed that the matter shall be listed c 
on 3rd March, 2008 and reversion, if any, was stayed till then. 
The matter was listed and after hearing the parties this Court 
dismissed the SLPs. Soon after dismissal of the SLPs on the 
merit, the respondent again filed revision for review of the 
judgment in Writ Appeal nos.107 4 and 1075 of 2004 dated 
0 
4.1.2008. The plea essentially was to get his two promotions 
regularized which otherwise had been accepted· by the 
respondent for many years to be conditional. It is pointed out 
that when the departmental proceedings were initiated during
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.