Previous Service Counts for Seniority in Delhi Police Transfer Case: Office Memorandum Partially Quashed

The Court ruled in favor of Sub-Inspectors transferred from BSF to Delhi Police, allowing them to count their previous service for seniority. It criticized a coordinate Bench for judicial impropriety in overruling a previous judgment. The validity of an Office Memorandum was challenged and partially struck down as violative of the Constitution. The appeals were allowed, the Memorandum was partially quashed, and costs were awarded against the respondent.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of Sub-Inspectors transferred from BSF to Delhi Police to count their previous service for seniority.
2. Judicial impropriety by a coordinate Bench of the tribunal.
3. Validity of the Office Memorandum dated 29.5.1986.

Summary:

1. Entitlement of Sub-Inspectors transferred from BSF to Delhi Police to count their previous service for seniority:
The core issue was whether Sub-Inspectors appointed in the BSF, when transferred on deputation to Delhi Police and subsequently absorbed, could count their substantive service in the BSF for seniority in the Delhi Police. The Court held that these transferred officials should be permitted to count their service in the parent department. This decision was grounded on the principles laid down in previous judgments, including *Madhavan's case*, which stated that deputation is akin to a transfer and the period of service in the original post should be respected and counted for seniority in the transferred post.

2. Judicial impropriety by a coordinate Bench of the tribunal:
The Court expressed serious dissatisfaction with the manner in which a coordinate Bench of the tribunal overruled an earlier judgment of another coordinate Bench. This was deemed a violation of judicial discipline and the rule of precedent. The Court emphasized that if a Bench disagrees with an earlier decision, it should refer the matter to a larger Bench instead of taking a contrary view.

3. Validity of the Office Memorandum dated 29.5.1986:
The constitutional validity of the Office Memorandum, which stipulated that seniority should be counted from the date of absorption, was challenged. The Court found the Memorandum to be inconsistent and partially violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Specifically, the words "whichever is later" in the Memorandum were struck down as they arbitrarily took away the right of the deputationists to count their previous service. The Court restored the right of the appellants to count their service from the date of their regular appointment in the BSF for seniority in the Delhi Police.

Conclusion:
The civil appeals and W.P. (C) No. 191/99 were allowed, and the Office Memorandum was partially quashed. The Court criticized the respondent's excessive involvement in litigation, which was seen as unnecessary and wasteful. The Delhi Administration was ordered to pay costs in all the matters.

---