SHAMSHER SINGH SANDHU versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
[2020] 1 S.C.R. 1024, Supreme Court of India, 2020
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1024
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
SHAMSHER SINGH SANDHU
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2020)
JANUARY 14, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD
AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Service Law – Promotion to the rank of Inspector General of
Police – Claim of – The order of promotion was granted to the
appellant to the rank of IG until he was reverted to the rank of DIG
– The order of reversion was stayed by the High Court – Thereafter,
both Single Judge and, in appeal, the Division Bench of the High
Court rejected the plea of the appellant to substantive promotion to
the rank of IG – The Supreme Court directed maintenance of status
quo – The appellant continued to work as an IG rank officer until
the date of his superannuation – The appellant sought retiral benefits
as an IG rank officer and also sought liberty to pursue his remedies
for promotion to the post of Additional DGP – Held: In exercise of
jurisdiction u/Art. 142, 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, no further
directions for the consideration of the case of appellant to the rank
of Additional DGP to be issued – The appellant’s claim for promotion
as Additional DGP is in consequence not accepted.
Disposing of the appeal, the
Court
HELD: 1. 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
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1024
1024
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1025
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. [Para 8][1028-E-G]
2. Having regard to the above factual position, this Court
is 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, this Court
is not inclined to issue any further directions for the consideration
of the case of the appellant to the rank of Additional DGP and this
Court is of the view that the matter must rest there. The
appellant’s claim for promotion as Additional DGP is in
consequence not accepted. [Para 9][1028-G-H; 1029-A-B]
3. 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. [Para 10][1029-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 266 of
2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.2014 of the High Court
of  Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar in L.P.A. No. 08 of 2014.
P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Ms. Prerna Mehta,  Advs. for the Appellant.
Aman Lekhi, ASG, Anmol Chandan, T.A. Khan, Shirin Khajuria,
B.V. Balaram Das, Prakash Kumar Sinha, Rajeev Singh, Advs. for the
Respondents.
SHAMSHER SINGH SANDHU v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1026
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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
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
1 LPA No 08/2014
2 IG
3 DIG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1027
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 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
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.
SHAMSHER SINGH SANDHU v. UNION OF INDIA
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
4  DPC
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1028
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
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 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1029
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 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.
Ankit Gyan
Appeal disposed of.
SHAMSHER SINGH SANDHU v. UNION OF INDIA
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]