R.L. Meena And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors
- SCC(2000) 7 SCC 181
- Neutral2000 INSC 427
- AIRAIR 2000 SC 3043
- SCR[2000] Supp (3) SCR 100
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where officers promoted to an All India Service from feeder services seek retrospective encadrement benefits, the appropriate remedy is not to quash the notifications denying those benefits by writ, but to direct that the petitioners may file detailed representations to the Central Government setting out the posts they consider fit for encadrement and special reasons for retrospective encadrement, which the Central Government shall consider in consultation with the State Government concerned and decide within a reasonable period, rather than granting the relief sought in the petition.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
The petitioners are officers of the Indian Police Service (IPS) in the Arunachal, Goa, Mizoram, Union Territories Cadre. They have all been promoted to the IPS from the Delhi and Andaman Nicobar Police Services which is one of the feeder services to the IPS. The petitioners filed these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs. "Issuance of writ, order or direction quashing the notifications dated 31.12.97 being arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and for further directions that petitioners and all other similarly situated All India Service Officers may be granted all the benefits with effect from 29th April, 1985 the date of granting relief to Shri K.K. Goswami and other officials of the Madhya Pradesh Forest Services.
By the date this writ petition came up for hearing to this Court, this Court had disposed of Writ Petition No. 613 of 1994 and batch filed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Services Officers Association against the Union of India and others.
At the time of admission of this writ petition on 28.7.2000 learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are seeking a direction similar tc the one issued in the Tamil Nadu Officer's case referred to above which has since been reported in 2000 (3) SCALE 98.
After hearing learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents, and the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the view that a similar direction is to be issued in this case also. We direct as follows:
"It is open to the petitioners to file a detailed representation to the Central Government, giving all the particulars of the post which they consider are fit to be encadred and special reasons why they should be encadred with a retrospective date and on such representation being made, the Central Government will consider these representations in consultation with the State Government concerned, and take appropriate decisions in this regard preferably within six months from the receipt of those representations. The petitions and appeal are disposed of accordingly. No costs."
The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above directions.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free