Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Rana Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors

Supreme Court20 February 1997K. Ramaswamy · S. Saghir Ahmad

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a court has directed a government to consider cases of persons who have completed a specified period of service for absorption in supernumerary posts, and the government has not considered a particular applicant's case because an appeal regarding that applicant was pending, the court may, upon disposal of that appeal, direct the government to consider the applicant's case in accordance with the rules applicable to temporary promotion and confirmation, notwithstanding that the applicant may have since retired from service.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

PETITIONER:RANA PRATAP SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/02/1997
BENCH:K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:

O R D E R This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment dated 17th November, 1983 of the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 2869 of 1983 etc. W.P. 2880 of 1983 having been filed by the appellant herein.

The Lucknow bench of the High Court by order dated November 17, 1983 dismissed all the writ petitions Subsequently, pending appeals, the Government had decided by proceedings dated December 1, 1984 to sanction the creation of 1300 supernumerary post of civil police in the pay scale of Rs. 515-860/- and that "only those officiating Sub- Inspector will be absorbed on these posts who have officiated on the posts of Sub-Inspector for three years or more till 30th September, 1984". This Court on 19th April, 1985 while disposing of the C.A. no. 8820 of 1983 and batch and directed the Government to consider the cases of all those persons who had completed three years or more in the light of the above direction for absorption in those supernumerary posts and promoted under para 191 of the Police Officer Manual. In respect of other Sub-Inspector covered under the said para 191 who had not completed three years of service, the reversion stood upheld.

The appellant herein claims that he was promoted temporarily in February 1976 as a Sub-Inspector and was appointed on that premise and that he had been continuing in that post till he was reverted on May, 1983. It would appear that pending appeal, the appeal, obviously, must have retired from service. However, if the case of the appellant had been considered in the light of the direction issued by this Court, no further action would have been needed. If the Government did not consider his case since the appeal was pending, it is now for the Government to consider his case in accordance with rules for temporary promotion and confirmation in on of the 1300 supernumerary posts created by the Government by the aforesaid order dated 19th April 1985 passed by this Court, and to pass appropriate in that behalf.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

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