Md. Sulaiman and Another vs Union of India and Others

The question in this appeal relates to the year of allotment to be assigned to the appellants in the Indian Police Service. According to the appellants, they should have been given 1973 as the year of allotment or at least 1976, whereas the first respondent fixed it as 1976. The difference between parties principally arises this way : The appellants were working in cadre posts of Indian Police Service, in the case of first appellant till 13.3.81, and in the case of second appellant, till 8.5.82. Thereafter, they were assigned a senior post, but this was not a cadre post though for pay purposes it was declared equivalent to a cadre post by the State Government. Since the appellants had continuously officiated in a cadre Post only from some time in 1984, the first respondent worked out the year of allotment as 1979. It is common ground that if the appellants'' service in the cadre post was not by way of continuous officiation till 1984, the year of allotment gvien by the first respondent is correct. We are, therefore, unable to interfere with the conclusion of the Tribunal in regard to the year of allotment. What we have said will, however, not affect the right of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 in the petition which they are stated to have filed before the Tribunal contending that the appellants were not entitled even 1979 as their year of allotment. It will also be without prejudice to the rights of the appellants in proceedings, if any, which the appellants propose to initiate as indicated below. The only contention that has been urged by Shri M.L. Verma on behalf of the appellants is that the break in their continuous officiation occurred only because they were not originally placed in the select list of 11.3.81. Subsequently, however, the right of the appellant to be placed in the select list of 11.3.81 has been recognised and there is no dispute regarding that. In view of this, Shri Verma states that this is an appropriate case of which the Central Government can be asked to consider whether it would be prepared to relax the rules and regulations so as to permit the appellants being treated as having been on continuous officiation even since 1981. This is a plea which is made on the strength of Rule 3 of the All India Services (Condition of Service Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960. It will be seen that this is a power given to the Central Government and has not been invoked so far. We, therefore, think that the appellants remedy lies in moving the Central Government under Rule 3 of the above rules, if so advised. We, therefore, express no opinion on the contention raised and leave it to the appellants, if so advised, to move the Central Government in this regard. We may only clarify that it will be open to the appellants to put forward before the Central Government all the material and contentions they may rely on in support of their claim for relaxation under Rule 3, both on law as well as facts.

If such an application is filed, the Central Government may before deciding the matter, issue notice to respondents Nos. 5 and 6 and hear them.

It is submitted that the appellants will be retiring from service within the next year or two and that, hence, the Government may be directed to dispose of the application, if any, filed by the appellants within three months from the dates of their filing. This is a reasonable request and we direct accordinaly. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of. There will be no order regarding costs.