TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Transferred Sub-Inspectors' Seniority Upheld, Unreasonable Memo Struck Down</h1> <h3>Sub Inspector Rooplal Versus LT. Governor Thru. Secy. Delhi</h3> Sub Inspector Rooplal Versus LT. Governor Thru. Secy. Delhi - 2000 AIR 594, 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 310, 2000 (1) SCC 644, 1999 (9) JT 597, 1999 (7) SCALE 466 Issues Involved:1. Whether a Sub-Inspector in the BSF, upon being transferred and permanently absorbed in the Delhi Police, is entitled to count his substantive service in the BSF for seniority in the Delhi Police.2. The constitutional validity of Office Memorandum No. 200020/7/80-Estt. (D) dated 29.5.1986.3. Judicial propriety and the rule of precedent in decisions by coordinate benches of the tribunal.Summary:Issue 1: Seniority of Sub-Inspectors Transferred from BSF to Delhi PoliceThe main question was whether a Sub-Inspector in the BSF, when transferred on deputation and permanently absorbed in the Delhi Police, could count his substantive service in the BSF for seniority in the Delhi Police. The Court noted that the Delhi Police urgently needed additional personnel, leading to the deputation and subsequent absorption of BSF Sub-Inspectors. The Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, particularly Rule 5(h), facilitated such deputations. The Court held that the appellants were entitled to count their service in the BSF for seniority in the Delhi Police, emphasizing that equivalency of posts should not be judged solely by pay scales but also by duties, responsibilities, and qualifications. The Court cited previous judgments, including Madhavan's case, to support this view.Issue 2: Constitutional Validity of the Office MemorandumThe constitutional validity of Office Memorandum No. 200020/7/80-Estt. (D) dated 29.5.1986 was challenged. The Court found that the Memorandum had not been made public or known to the concerned parties. The Memorandum's clause 'whichever is later' was deemed unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court struck down these words, thereby allowing the appellants to count their service from the date of their regular appointment in the BSF for seniority in the Delhi Police.Issue 3: Judicial Propriety and Rule of PrecedentThe Court expressed serious dissatisfaction with the manner in which a coordinate bench of the tribunal overruled an earlier judgment of another coordinate bench, violating principles of judicial discipline. The latter bench should have referred the matter to a larger bench instead of taking a contrary view. The Court emphasized that consistency in the interpretation of law is crucial for public confidence in the judicial system.Conclusion:The civil appeals and W.P. (C) No. 191/99 were allowed, restoring the appellants' right to count their service in the BSF for seniority in the Delhi Police. The Court also dismissed T.C. (C) No. 56/99 and ordered the Delhi Administration to pay costs in all matters. The Court criticized the respondents' excessive involvement in litigation, suggesting that the State should act impartially and not take sides in inter-se disputes among its employees.
TaxTMI 