High Courts(2002) 04 PAT CK 0098

Union of India (UOI) vs Bimlesh Prasad Sinha and Others and Chandrika Prasad Kiron and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 16 April 2002

RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.W.J.C. Nos. 4862 and 4884 of 2002

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 294 words
1.

The Union of India challenge the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 13 November 2001 in O.A. No. 624 of 1995 and O.A. No. 80 of 1996. This matter relates to the Officers of the Indian Police Service Cadre. The issue is the date as to when they should be given effect to their promotion whether it is 1995 or 1996. The matter has been in litigation before the tribunal itself on several occasions on similarly situated IPS Officers. The tribunal has pointed out that a confusion had arisen because of the extension granted to certain officers, a nexus which had not been given or disclosed by the State Government.

2.

The admitted position has been noticed by the tribunal in paragraphs-8, 9 and 10 of its order. Ultimately, relying on a Supreme Court decision also from the State of Bihar in re. Devendra Narayan Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, , the tribunal came to the conclusion that there is a difference between the preparation of a select list and of names being included in a select list of a given year. The matter before the Supreme Court was the aspect that a select list was prepared in 1985 though names of officers had been included in the year, 1983. Having noticed all the submissions, the Supreme Court laid down that the year of reckoning will be the year in which the officers found their name in the select list, though subsequently approved. The ratio decidendi of the order of the Supreme Court is noticed in paragraph 6. The tribunal followed the judgment of the Supreme Court.

3.

In the circumstances, the court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

4.

Dismissed.