Page 1

C.A.No.3906/09   

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3906 OF 2009

M.P. Singh Bargoti        …..Appellant

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.   …..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

1. This  appeal  is  directed  against  final  judgment  and  order  

dated  15.10.2007  passed  in  Writ  Petition  No.4449  of  2001  

whereby the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the writ  

petition of the appellant and declined to interfere with order of  

the M.P. Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the  

Tribunal’) dated 26.02.2001 passed in O.A.No.1122 of 2000.   

2. The  simple  case  of  the  appellant  is  that  he  has  been  

deprived of benefits of timely consideration and promotion from  

the post  of  Inspector to  the post  of  Deputy  Superintendent  of  

1

Page 2

C.A.No.3906/09   

Police although there was a direction of the Tribunal in cases filed  

by others  and disposed of  on 15.06.1993 and 03.11.1997 and  

also in a case filed  by the appellant along with 29 others bearing  

O.A. No.893 of 1997 allowed on 11.03.1998 for preparation of a  

Combined  Gradation  List  for  promotion  to  the  post  of  Deputy  

Superintendent of Police and to include in it the names of all who  

were petitioners before the Tribunal.

3. Since the order of the Tribunal dated 11.03.1998 was not  

challenged  by  any  one  and  attained  finality,  the  case  of  the  

appellant deserves to be considered on the basis of facts noted in  

paragraph 1 of that order and the relief granted in paragraphs 8  

and 9 of that order.  They are as follows :

“The  applicants  in  this  case  are  inspectors  in  the  Finger Print Branch of the Police Department, which is  an  executive  Branch  of  the  said  department.   The  applicants have averred that for promotion to the next  higher  post  of  Deputy  Superintendent  of  Police  the  respondents  have  from  time  to  time  issued  a  combined gradation list of inspectors of the executive  branches  of  the  department.   The  applicants’  contention is that the combined gradation list issued  for the year 1996 does not include their names in it.  In  this  connection  they  have  submitted  that  all  the  persons belonging to the finger print branch have not  been  included  in  the  combined  gradation  list.   The  applicants’ contention is that the non-inclusion of their  names in the combined gradation list is in violation of  the  provisions  of  Madhya  Pradesh  Police  (Gazetted  Officers)  Recruitment  Rules  1987 –  ‘1987 Rules’  for  short – and also the directions of the Tribunal given in  

2

Page 3

C.A.No.3906/09   

order dated 15.6.1993 passed in O.A.No.93/92 placed  at  Annexure  A-1,  as  also  order  dated  3.11.1997  passed in O.A.No.834/93.  The applicants’ submission  is  that  meeting  of  the  departmental  promotion  committee is going to be held shortly on the basis of a  combined  gradation  list  excluding  their  names  and  they will therefore, thus be deprived of consideration  for promotion illegally.  The applicants have, therefore,  prayed for a direction to the respondents to include  their names as also names of other inspectors of the  Finger Print Branch in the combined gradation list of  inspectors of the executive branches and to consider  the cases of their promotions on the basis of such a  combined gradation list.   By way of  interim relief  it  was directed by the Tribunal that the meeting of the  departmental  promotion  committee  for  considering  promotion  to  the  post  of  Deputy  Superintendent  of  Police may be held but no orders promoting anyone  out of the select list so prepared shall be issued till the  disposal of this case.  

…. …. …. …. …. …. …. ….

8. In  view  of  the  above  discussion  the  petition  deserves  to  be  allowed.   The  applicants  shall  be  included in the combined gradation list of Inspectors  for consideration of their cases for promotion to the  post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in accordance  with  the  inter-se  seniority  position  which  may  be  assigned to them in such a list.  If a meeting of the  Departmental  Promotion  Committee  has  been  held  already  without  considering  the  claims  of  the  applicants  then  the  recommendations  of  that  departmental promotion committee shall not be acted  upon  and  a  fresh  meeting  of  the  departmental  promotion committee shall be held keeping in view the  directions given herein.

9. Cost of the petition amounting to Rs.1500/- shall  also be paid to the applicants by the respondents.”

3

Page 4

C.A.No.3906/09   

4. It  is  also  not  in  dispute  that  there  was  a  subsequent  

adjudication by the Tribunal  of a similar dispute wherein there  

was an opposition to preparation of Combined Gradation List for  

Inspectors of other disciplines like Finger Print, Motor Transport  

etc.  The appellant and other beneficiaries of order of the Tribunal  

dated  11.03.1998 were  not  parties  to  those  cases  when  such  

subsequent order dated 22.06.1999 was passed.  In paragraph 13  

of this order, the Tribunal re-affirmed the correctness and validity  

of the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 11.03.1998, upheld the  

Combined Gradation List under challenge and examined various  

new aspects raised in the subsequent case leading to issuance of  

additional directions to amend the Rules.  The Madhya Pradesh  

Police (Gazetted Officers) Recruitment Rules 1987 were amended  

by  the  State  Government  on  26.05.2000  and  in  view  of  the  

amended  rules,  fresh  Gradation  List  was  prepared  which  was  

admittedly only for Inspectors who were still in service and were  

required to be governed by the amended Rules of 2000.  It is also  

not in dispute that the appellant did not challenge the Gradation  

List of the year 2000 because his claim was only on the basis of  

unamended  rules  which  as  per  final  judicial  pronouncement  

noticed earlier, required publication of a Combined Gradation List  

4

Page 5

C.A.No.3906/09   

for  promotion  to  the post  of  Deputy  Superintendent  of  Police.  

Admittedly,  appellant  retired  on  31.03.1998  while  holding  the  

post of Inspector.

5. The appellant preferred a Misc. Application bearing No.113  

of 1998 before the Tribunal which was heard along with another  

O.A.  bearing  No.1122/2000  filed  by  other  Inspectors.   The  

Tribunal dismissed the applications vide order dated 26.02.2001  

by holding that the appellant failed to show that the order of the  

Tribunal  dated 11.03.1998 had been ignored or  violated.   The  

Tribunal  further  took  a  technical  stand  that  no  person  was  

impleaded as a party whose promotion could cause a grievance  

to  the  appellant.   The  appellant  challenged  the  order  of  the  

Tribunal dated 26.02.2001 through a writ petition which has been  

dismissed by the order under appeal dated 15.10.2007.  The High  

Court relied upon the observations of the Tribunal and came to  

an opinion that in the absence of any allegation regarding non-

consideration  in  the  Departmental  Promotion  Committee,  

supersession by juniors as well as absence of any challenge to  

the  orders  of  the  Tribunal  passed  in  O.A.Nos.817  and  818  of  

1998, the writ petition deserved to be dismissed as misconceived  

and meritless.  

5

Page 6

C.A.No.3906/09   

6. In the course of hearing of this appeal, on 25.06.2014, we  

noted  the  submissions  advanced  by  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant.  The order runs as follows :  

“We have heard arguments in extenso.

Learned counsel for the appellant’s submission is  that despite the directions passed on 15.6.1993 and  3.11.1997,  a  combined  list  was  not  prepared.  Meanwhile,  persons  junior  to  the  petitioner  were  promoted, such as Mr. V.N. Dubey at serial no.42 in  Annexure  P9  before  the  writ  court  who  had  been  promoted with effect from 29.5.1997.  It is prayed that  even  though  the  petitioner  has  superannuated  on  31.1.1998, he would at least be entitled to pensionary  benefits computed from the date on which the persons  junior  to  him  in  the  service  were  promoted  and  to  simplify this determination, the Appellant has referred  to Mr. V.N. Dubey.

It is in these circumstances that learned counsel  for the respondent prays for an adjournment to obtain  instructions on the veracity of Annexure P9.

Re-notify  for  this  purpose  only  on  7th August,  2014 for further hearing.”

7.  The date of superannuation of the appellant suffered from  

a  typographical  error  in  the  aforesaid  order.   That  date  is  

31.03.1998.  Annexure P9 available before the writ court showed  

that appellant was at serial no.12, much higher to Mr. V.N. Dubey  

at serial no.42.  The reason for not promoting the appellant and  

some  others  like  him  appointed  on  the  post  of  Inspector  on  

6

Page 7

C.A.No.3906/09   

29.05.1981 was indicated to be non-inclusion in the Combined  

Gradation List.  Mr. V.N. Dubey appointed on the post of Inspector  

in 1983 has been admittedly promoted w.e.f. 29.05.1997 and on  

that date the appellant was still in service.   

8. When  the  matter  was  listed  for  further  hearing  on  

18.11.2014, the learned counsel for the respondents confirmed  

that Annexure P9 is an authentic document and the particulars  

noted above on its basis are not under dispute.  However, learned  

counsel for the respondents again sought to defend the stand of  

the  State  on  the  ground  that  Mr.  Dubey  belonged  to  another  

Section  and  not  to  Finger  Print  Section  and,  therefore,  his  

promotion made subsequently  after  the superannuation of  the  

appellant but from an earlier date cannot furnish any cause of  

action to the appellant for claiming that if not actual promotion,  

he should be given benefit of notional promotion to that post at  

least for the purpose of pensionary benefits.  

9. We  have  carefully  considered  the  rival  contentions,  the  

relevant facts  and the prevailing rules  governing promotion at  

the relevant time.  There is  no dispute that  despite directions  

passed since 15.06.1993 by the Tribunal and lastly reiterated in  

the case of the appellant on 11.03.1998, a Combined Gradation  

7

Page 8

C.A.No.3906/09   

List  was  not  prepared  at  the  appropriate  time  and  ultimately  

when it was prepared to show compliance with the order of the  

Tribunal,  it  was  never  acted  upon  because  the  subsequent  

directions of the Tribunal for amendment of rules was preferred  

by the State and the claim of the appellant was never considered  

by the Departmental Promotion Committee till he was in service  

or  even thereafter  when  person like  Mr.  V.N.  Dubey who  was  

junior  to  the  appellant  in  the  Combined  Gradation  List  was  

considered  allegedly  on  the  basis  of  another  subsequent  

gradation list  and promoted with effect  from a date when the  

appellant was still in service.

10. In the aforesaid circumstances, in our considered view, the  

Tribunal and the High Court erred in law as well as on facts in  

denying relief to the appellant.  The position would have been  

different  if  appellant’s  junior  had  been  promoted  from a  date  

subsequent to his superannuation.  Then appellant would have  

suffered only on account of passage of time or innocuous delay  

but  in  the  present  facts  he  has  suffered  hostile  and  arbitrary  

discrimination  vis-à-vis  a  junior.   The  order  under  appeal  is  

therefore set aside.  Since the appellant was in service only till  

31.03.1998, he is held entitled to notional promotion to the post  

8

Page 9

C.A.No.3906/09   

of  Deputy  Superintendent  of  Police  w.e.f.  29.05.1997  till  

31.03.1998.  He will be deemed to have superannuated on that  

post and shall  be given all  the post retirement benefits by re-

calculating  the same on the premise that  he held the post  of  

Deputy  Superintendent  of  Police  from  29.05.1997  till  his  

superannuation on 31.03.1998.  The revised pensionary benefits  

as well as arrears on that account should be made available to  

the appellant at the earliest and in any case within three months  

from the date of this order.   The appellant is held entitled to a  

consolidated cost of Rs.50,000/- which should also be paid along  

with other benefits within the time indicated above.  The appeal  

is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

     …………………………………….J.       [VIKRAMAJIT SEN]

      ……………………………………..J.                  [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]

New Delhi. November 27, 2014.

9

Page 10

C.A.No.3906/09   

ITEM NO.1               COURT NO.8               SECTION IV

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

Civil Appeal  No(s).  3906/2009

M.P.SINGH BARGOTI                                   Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.                      Respondent(s)

Date : 27/11/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing  today.

CORAM :           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH For Appellant(s)                      Mr. Vishal Arun,Adv.                       

For Respondent(s)                      Mr. C. D. Singh,Adv.                       

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

10

Page 11

T

(Sukhbir Paul Kaur)                      (Indu Pokhriyal)    Court Master                        Court Master