1. State of Bihar and its officers aggrieved by the order dated 18th June, 2007, passed by the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 712 of 2004, have preferred this application and pray for quashing of the aforesaid order.
2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that respondent No. 1 Brij Bihari Prasad was initially recruited as Sub-Inspector of Police on 2.1.1966. He was promoted as Inspector on officiating basis by order dated 16.7.1971 and he joined as such on 27.7.1971. However, he was promoted as regular Inspector with effect from 2.7.1978 and confirmed as such with effect from 1.4.1982. Earlier his seniority in the rank of Inspector was to be reckoned with effect from 27.7.1971, that is, the day on which he had joined as officiating Inspector but later on by order dated 13.4.1993, it was modified and his seniority as Inspector was directed to be reckoned with effect from 2.7.1978, that is, the date on which he was promoted on regular basis. Respondent No. 1 Brij Bihari Prasad challenged the aforesaid order by filing CWJC. No. 4108 of 1991 before this Court, which quashed the aforesaid order and directed that his seniority be reckoned from the date he joined as officiating Inspector, that is, 27.7.1971. Respondent No. 1 thereafter was granted regular promotion as Inspector with effect from 1.1.1975 and promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from 11.7.1981. Respondent No. 1 challenged his promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from 11.7.1981 and prayed that he be promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from 25.10.1975 by filing CWJC No. 697 of 1995 before this Court. This Court accepted the plea of respondent No. 1 and directed that he be promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from 25.10.1975. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1018 of 1995 preferred against the aforesaid order has been dismissed by this Court. Ultimately, respondent No. 1 was given promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from 23.3.1974 and promoted to the Indian Police Service and given 1985 as the year of allotment in IPS Cadre. By order dated 14.11.2000, respondent No. 1 along with five other officers of 1985 Batch was granted the selection grade.
3. It is relevant to state here that the State of Bihar aggrieved by the direction to promote respondent No. 1 as Deputy Superintendent of Police with retrospective effect and dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1018 of 1995, preferred Civil Appeal being Civil Appeal No. 3006 of 2000 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not approve the view of this Court granting promotion to respondent No. 1 with retrospective effect and disposed of the appeal with the directions. In the present case, we are concerned with direction No. 4 as contained in Paragraph - 35 of the judgment which reads as follows:
35(4): It is, however, made clear that despite setting aside of the impugned judgments the service benefits conferred upon Brij Bihari Prasad Singh consequent upon the judgments of the High Court shall not be withdrawn and his appointment/promotion in the IPS cadre not disturbed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid decision a show cause notice dated 4.12.2002 was issued to him asking to show cause as to why the selection grade granted to him be not rescinded. Respondent No. 1 submitted his reply and on consideration of the same by notification dated 17th of July, 2003 selection grade granted to him was rescinded.
5. Respondent No. 1 challenged the aforesaid order before the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which has allowed his application, quashed the order rescinding the grant of selection grade and directed that the arrears of pay, if any, be paid within three months and if it is not paid within the time stipulated interest at the rate of 9% shall be payable to him. While doing so, the Tribunal has observed as follows:
The applicant was granted seniority in the cadres of Inspector as well of Dy. S.P. under decisions of the Hon'ble Patna High Court. Though these decisions have been held to be erroneous by the Apex Court but as these orders had been implemented without a challenge in the Apex Court and further developments took place like the applicant resigning from the State Service and being elevated to the IPS Cadre, the Apex Court held that the benefits that the applicant had already received by his elevation to the IPS Cadre should stay. It follows that further service benefit to the applicant should follow his appointment to the IPS Cadre with the seniority that had been granted to him in accordance with law by allotting a particular year. The State Government in reading the intention of the Apex Court has gone to the extent of declaring, as already noticed, that the applicant should not be granted any further promotion in IPS. Here the State has traveled to another extreme. Besides reading the intention of the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Kameshwar Prasad Singh, the respondents State of Bihar have not pointed out any law or extant rule which would support their decision in this regard.
6. Additional Advocate General - IV appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in view of clear stipulation in the direction of the Supreme Court, respondent No. 1 shall not be entitled for any benefits excepting that his appointment to the Indian Police Service shall not be disturbed.
7. We do not have the slightest hesitation in rejecting the submission of learned Additional Advocate General. The direction of the Supreme Court in the case of respondent No. 1 has been quoted in preceding paragraph of this order. In an unequivocal term the Supreme Court had observed that the service benefits conferred upon respondent No. 1 consequent upon the judgment of the High Court shall not be withdrawn and his appointment/promotion in the IPS Cadre not disturbed.
8. In face of the aforesaid direction, the benefits flowing to respondent No. 1 of grant of selection grade is not fit to be withdrawn. In our opinion, in view of the order of the Supreme Court, respondent No. 1 shall continue as a member of the Indian Police Service and benefits flowing on account of rendering service in that Service would accrue to him, which cannot be withdrawn.
9. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal did not err in quashing the order by which the grant of selection grade was rescinded.
We do not find any merit in this application.
It is dismissed, accordingly.