1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2020   (Arising out of SLP (C) No 30347 of 2014)

Shamsher Singh Sandhu                   .... Appellant(s)

      Versus

Union of India and Others                  ....Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

1 Leave granted.

2 This appeal arises from a judgment and order of the High Court of

Jammu and Kashmir dated 29 October 2014 in a Letters Patent Appeal1.

3 The  dispute  in  the  present  case  pertains  to  the  claim  of  the

appellant for promotion to the rank of Inspector General of Police2.  The

appellant was holding the rank of Deputy Inspector General3 in the CRPF,

having initially been inducted into the service in 1976.  When his turn came

up  for  being  considered  for  promotion  as  an  IG,  the  Annual  Medical

1 LPA No 08/2014 2 IG 3 DIG

2

Examination on 22 June 2011 categorized the appellant as S1H1A1P2E1

(T-24)  rendering  him  unfit  for  promotion.   In  the  Annual  Medical

Examination  on  4  January  2012,  he  was  again  categorized  as

S1H1A1P3E1 (T-12).  A Review Medical Board was convened on 16 June

2012 which assigned to the appellant a SHAPE 2 (T-24) categorization.

Again on 13 July 2012, at the behest of the appellant, a Medical Board was

constituted of officers outside the CRPF which on 13 July 2012 assigned to

the appellant a SHAPE 2 (Permanent) categorization.  This was followed by

a Medical Board on 26 July 2012 under the directions of the Union Home

Secretary.   Eventually,  on  27  August  2012  and  31  August  2012,  the

appellant was examined at the Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital in which he

was assigned the medical categorization of S1H1A1P1 (o024)E1.  On 4

January 2013, a Medical Board was constituted at the All India Institute of

Medical  Sciences,  but  the appellant  did  not  present  himself  for  medical

examination.   In  February  2013,  a  Medical  Board  chaired  by  the  ADM

(Medical), with two IG rank officers in the Medical Division of other Forces,

was  constituted,  which  reported  the  appellant  to  be  in  the  SHAPE  2

(Permanent) category.   

4 The appellant had instituted proceedings before the High Court of

Jammu and Kashmir, which resulted in interim directions in pursuance of

which  the  appellant  was  initially  examined  by  a  Board  of  the  All  India

Institute of Medical Sciences.  The report of the Board dated 2 July 2014

was examined by a Committee constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

The Committee opined that the appellant was in a SHAPE 3 (Permanent)

category with a longstanding case of diabetes and hypertension.  It may be

3

noted, at this stage, that during the chequered history of the present case,

the appellant was, on the basis of the report of the Dr Ram Manohar Lohia

Hospital, granted promotion as an IG in September 2012.  The appellant

was posted as  IG (Operations)  with  the CRPF in Jammu and Kashmir.

Subsequently, on 3 April 2013, the order of promotion was withdrawn with

immediate effect following which he was reverted to the rank of DIG.  The

order of reversion was stayed by the High Court on 9 April 2013, as a result

of which, the appellant continued to work as IG.  Both the learned Single

Judge and, in appeal, the Division Bench rejected the plea of the appellant

to substantive promotion to the rank of IG.  On 13 November 2014, this

Court, while issuing notice on the Special Leave Petition, directed that the

status quo shall  be maintained by the parties until  further orders.   As a

consequence  of  the  interim  order  passed  by  this  Court,  the  appellant

continued to work in the rank of IG until his eventual retirement from service

on 31 January 2016.

5 During the pendency of these proceedings, on 8 September 2015,

this  Court  directed  the  constitution  of  a  supplementary  Departmental

Promotion Committee4 to consider the appellant for promotion to the rank of

Additional DGP, CRPF.  A DPC was convened on 21 October 2015, the

result of which has been placed in a sealed cover.   

6 Mr P S Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant, assailed the judgment of the High Court by submitting that the

categorization  of  the  appellant  by  the  Dr  Ram Manohar  Lohia  Hospital

ought to have been accepted by the authorities.  Learned senior counsel

4 DPC

4

submitted that the appellant was reverted from the rank of IG to that of a

DIG without a notice to show cause and an opportunity of being heard.  Mr

Patwalia  urged  that  the  appellant  had  an  outstanding  record  as  an  IG

(Operations) in Jammu and Kashmir and it  would be unfair to deny him

retiral benefits as an IG rank officer. The second limb of submission is that

the case of the appellant was considered by the DPC in pursuance of the

interim order of this Court and the sealed cover should be directed to be

opened, with liberty to the appellant, in the event that he is aggrieved, to

pursue his remedies for promotion to the post of Additional DGP.

7 Mr Aman Lekhi, learned Additional Solicitor General, on the other

hand, submitted that the record would indicate that the appellant had been

examined on  numerous  occasions  by  the  Medical  Boards  and  was  not

found to fulfill the benchmark required of being a SHAPE I category officer.

Mr Lekhi submitted that the report  which was submitted by the Dr Ram

Manohar Lohia Hospital had to be placed for consideration for appropriate

classification  by  the  Medical  Board  of  CRPF  under  clause  4.7  of  the

Standing  Orders  absent  which  the  promotion  which  was  granted  to  the

appellant  was contrary to the rules.   That  apart,  it  has been urged that

before the High Court, the appellant was examined by a Board of the All

India Institute of Medical Sciences and the report of the Medical Board was

duly considered by a Committee constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs

which  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  appellant  was  in  a  SHAPE  3

(Permanent) category.  Mr Lekhi further submitted that, at the highest, the

salary which has been paid over to the appellant for the period during which

he  worked  as  IG  may  not  be  withdrawn  or  recovered  and  there  is  no

5

question of the retiral dues being disbursed to the appellant on the basis

that he had retired as an IG rank officer.  Consequently, it was urged that

there is no question of any further consideration of the case of the appellant

for promotion as Additional DGP.

8 Having heard the rival  submissions,  the significant  aspect  of  the

case  which  merits  emphasis  is  that  the  appellant  continued  to  work,

pursuant to the order of promotion that was granted to him to the rank of IG

until  he  was  reverted  to  the  rank  of  DIG.   The  order  of  reversion  was

passed  without  the  issuance  of  a  notice  to  show  cause  and  without

furnishing  any  opportunity  of  being  heard  to  the  appellant.   During  the

pendency of the proceedings before the High Court, the order of reversion

was stayed.  Then again, when the proceedings came before this Court

upon the dismissal of the Writ Petition as well as the Letters Patent Appeal,

this  Court  directed the maintenance of  status quo.   The appellant,  as a

result of the interim order passed by this Court, continued to work as an IG

rank officer until the date of his superannuation.  He did so for a period of

nearly four years.  

9 Having regard to the above factual position, we are of the view that

the ends of justice would require a direction by this Court, in exercise of its

jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, that the retiral dues of the

appellant be computed and released on the basis that he has retired from

service in  the substantive rank of  an IG.  However,  having perused the

record, particularly the report of the Medical Board which was constituted

finally in pursuance of the directions of the High Court, we are not inclined

6

to  issue  any  further  directions  for  the  consideration  of  the  case  of  the

appellant to the rank of Additional DGP and  we are of the view that the

matter must rest there. We have in consequence accepted the second limb

of the submissions urged by Mr Lekhi, the learned ASG. The appellant’s

claim for promotion as Additional DGP is in consequence not accepted.  

10 We accordingly dispose of the appeal with a direction that the retiral

dues of the appellant shall be computed and released to him within a period

of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order on the

basis of the position that he retired as an IG on 31 January 2016.  The

sealed cover shall, in consequence, be returned to the respondents.  The

appellant shall have no further claim for promotion as an Additional DGP.

There shall be no order as to costs.   

…………...…...….......………………........J.                                                                     [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J.                              [Ajay Rastogi]

 New Delhi;  January 14, 2020

7

ITEM NO.11               COURT NO.8               SECTION XVI-A

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)  No(s).30347/2014

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  29-10-2014 in LPA No. 8/2014 passed by the High Court of J & K at Jammu)

SHAMSHER SINGH SANDHU                              Petitioner(s)

                               VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                              Respondent(s)

Date : 14-01-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv.                   Ms. Prerna Mehta, AOR                     For Respondent(s) Mr. Aman Lekhi, ASG

Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv. Mr. T.A. Khan, Adv. Mr. Shirin Khajuria, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv.

                  Mr. Prakash Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                               O R D E R

Leave granted.

The  appeal  is  disposed  of  in  terms  of  the  signed

reportable  judgment.   There  shall  be  no  order  as  to

costs.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

 (SANJAY KUMAR-I)                (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)      AR-CUM-PS                           COURT MASTER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)