SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- V.N. Khare and Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 1788 of 1997. D/d. 29.3.2000

Union of India - Appellant

Versus

P.K. Lambodaran Nair - Respondent

Constitution of India, Article 136 - Retirement - Promotion - Relief - Respondent was working with Kerala State Police Service - He retired on 30.9.1995 but was granted extension of service for three months - On 17.11.1995, a select list in which his name was included for promotion to Indian Police Service became operative - Government declined the promotion in view of the Office Memo dated 18.5.1977, which provided that when a person is to retire, he shall not be given extension of service for the purpose of promotion to higher post - Tribunal held Office Memo dated 18.5.1977 to be inapplicable, being administrative - View of Tribunal upheld - However, in view of decision of Tribunal having been implemented and the respondent having continued to work on promoted post and is to retire shortly, no interference in the matter.

[Para 2]

ORDER

V.N. Khare, J. - The respondent herein was the member of the Kerala State Police Service. He who to retire on 30th September, 1995 but the Government granted him extension of service for three months. A select list wherein the name of respondent No. 1 was included for promotion to the Indian Police Service became operative on 17th November, 1995. The Central Government had issued an Office Memorandum on 18.5.77 whereunder it was provided that where a person who is to retire, shall not be given extension of service for the purposes of promotion to the higher post. In view of the aforesaid memorandum the Central Government declined the promotion of the respondent to Indian Police Service. At this stage the respondent filed a petition before Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the view that the Office Memorandum dated 18.5.77 being executive instructions has no application where promotions are regulated by statutory Rules and therefore the Central Government ought to have approved the name of the respondent for promotion to the post of Indian Police Service. Consequently the petition was allowed. The appellant-Union of India is in appeal before us.

2. We have heard the parties. On perusal of the judgment we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal that Office Memorandum, dated 18.5.77 was not applicable in the present case, does not appear to be a correct view of law. However, as the Central Government has implemented the decision of the Tribunal and the respondent has continued to work on the promoted post and is to retire shortly after five months, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter. With the above observation we dismiss this appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.