1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Supreme Court ruling on seniority of Deputy Superintendent of Police</h1> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The respondent's seniority as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.) was ... - Issues Involved:1. Seniority determination of the respondent in the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.).2. Applicability of Office Memorandum dated May 29, 1986.3. Validity of the High Court's judgment.Summary:1. Seniority Determination of the Respondent:The respondent joined U.P. Police Service as Sub-Inspector on February 16, 1964, and was deputed to the CBI on May 11, 1966. He was appointed as Inspector on December 31, 1970, and later as Dy.S.P. on ad-hoc basis on November 24, 1977. The respondent was formally absorbed in CBI as Dy.S.P. on June 29, 1987. The respondent claimed seniority from November 24, 1977, but the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed his application, and the High Court allowed his writ petition, directing seniority from November 24, 1977.2. Applicability of Office Memorandum dated May 29, 1986:The Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated May 29, 1986, deals with the seniority of persons absorbed after being on deputation. It states that seniority should be counted from the date of absorption unless the officer held the same or equivalent grade on a regular basis in the parent department. The respondent did not hold the Dy.S.P. or equivalent post in his parent department (U.P. Police) at the time of his absorption in 1987.3. Validity of the High Court's Judgment:The Supreme Court held that the respondent's seniority should be counted from the date of absorption, i.e., June 29, 1987, as he did not hold the Dy.S.P. or equivalent post in his parent department on a regular basis. The Court emphasized that the construction of sub-para (iv) of the O.M. dated May 29, 1986, should not render any part of it redundant. The Court found no merit in the respondent's claim for seniority from 1977 and upheld the Tribunal's view that the respondent could not claim seniority in CBI before his absorption.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment dated March 8, 2002, was set aside. The respondent's seniority was to be counted from June 29, 1987.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
