2021 INSC 0585
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).  6091      OF 2021
               (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 21736 of 2007)
UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE
SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
AND FOREST  ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
TRILOK S. BHANDARI & ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated   14 th
  November,   2006   passed   by   the   High   Court   of
Uttarakhand   directing   the   present   appellant   to   adjust   the   original
petitioner­1 st
  respondent   and   other   persons   like   him   who   were
1

earlier   promoted   in   the   cadre   of   Indian   Forest   Service   (hereinafter
being referred to as the “IFS”) in the year 1996 against the notional
vacancies   and   consequential   pensionary   benefits   keeping   in   view
the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   Union   of   India   and   Others   Vs.
Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah    1
.
3. The   facts   in   brief   which   are   relevant   for   the   present   purpose
are that the 1 st
  respondent was the member of State Forest Service
of   UP   Cadre   and   after   clubbing   of   the   earlier   year   vacancies   of
1984­96, promotions were made to the IFS cadre with effect from 6 th
September,   1996   by   an   Order   dated   16 th
  September,   1996   that
came to be challenged by filing of an original application before the
Central Administrative Tribunal(hereinafter being referred to as the
“Tribunal”)   on   the   premise   that   clubbing   of   vacancies   is   not
permissible   and   it   is   in   violation   of   Regulation   5   of   the
IFS(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966(hereinafter being
referred   to   as   “Regulations   1966”)   based   on   the   judgment   of   this
Court in  Union of India and Others (supra).  The Tribunal allowed
1   1996(6) SCC 721
2

the   application   and   quashed   the   order   of   promotion   dated   10 th
September, 1997 as follows:­
“30. In view of the foregoing discussions, we have no manner of doubt
that it was incumbent upon the respondents to prepare separate year
wise   vacancies   restricting   zone   of   consideration   in   relation   to   the
vacancies of each year. This it is, however not to suggest that officers
who are included in the year wise select list are to be given promotion
retrospectively from the year in which they are selected. This was the
proposition advanced… and we reject the same.
31.  The Impugned select list is accordingly     quashed  only on the short
point   that   this   was   a   combined   select   list   of   vacancies   which   arose
during   a   period   of   nearly   12   years.   We   direct   the   respondents   to
prepare year wise select list by holding review DPC in accordance with
the   law.   Officers   who   have   already   been   promoted   on   the   basis   of
impugned zsselect list need not, however, be reverted but their further
continuance  as  members  of  IFS  cadre  would  depend  on the  outcome
of   the   review   DPC   which   shall   be   held   by   the   Respondents   within   a
period not exceeding 2 months…”
4. The   order   of   the   Tribunal   came   to   be   challenged   in   Civil
Miscellaneous   Writ   Petition   No.   2663   of   1998   which   came   to   be
dismissed by a judgment dated 11 th
 May, 2001 upholding the order
of the Tribunal pursuant to which the review recommendations and
appointments   were   made   by   notification   dated   8 th
  July,   2005
followed with notification dated 4 th
/5 th
 October, 2005.
5. It   may   be   relevant   to   note   that   the   recommendations   which
were made by notifications dated 8 th
 July, 2005 and 4 th
/5 th
 October,
2005 pursuant to which the officers were promoted in the IFS were
3

never   a   subject   matter   of   challenge   at   least   in   the   instant
proceedings.
6. The   1 st
  respondent   was   earlier   in   the   list   of   officers   promoted
under   the   IFS   cadre   by   an   order   dated   16 th
  September,   1996   but
when the review recommendations were made pursuant to the order
of the Tribunal, he did not find place in the list of officers promoted
by notifications dated 8 th
 July, 2005 and 4 th
/5 th
 October, 2005.  The
1 st
  respondent   stood   retired   from   service   on   attaining   the
superannuation on 30 th
 November, 1996 just three months after the
promotions   made   in   the   first   instance   by   an   order   dated   16 th
September 1996.  
7. The 1 st
 respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of
Uttarakhand   seeking   writ   of   mandamus   that   such   of   the   officers
whose   name   did   not   find   place   in   the   review   recommendations
made   by   the   selection   committee   pursuant   to   which   appointments
were made by notifications dated 8 th
 July, 2005 and 4 th
/5 th
 October,
2005 may be adjusted keeping in view the directions issued by this
Court in  Union of India and Others (supra). 
4

8. The   writ   petition   filed   at   his   instance   came   to   be   allowed   by
the   High   Court   by   a   judgment   and   order   dated   14 th
  November,
2006, the operative part of the order is referred hereunder:­
“15.   The   petitioner   as   well   as   other   persons   like   the   petitioner,   who
were   selected   as   per   final   seniority   list   of   1996   and   were   promoted
were   entitled   to   be   adjusted   against   those   eight   vacancies   against
which the notional promotions were made as the notional promotions
were only for the selection grade and for pensionary benefit. It is also
clarified here that the petitioner has also retired, therefore he is also
entitled for notional promotion allocating him year of allotment as per
rules. 
16.   For   the   reasons   recorded   above,   we   allow   the   writ   petition
agreeing   with   the   view   taken   by   central   Administrative   Tribunal,
Ahmedabad Bench which is in the light and spirit of the judgment of
Hon’ble   the   Supreme   Court   in   Vipinchandra   Hiralal   Shah’s   case
(supra)   and   declare   that   the   petitioner   and   other   persons   who   were
promoted in the year 1996 (w.e.f. 1992) stand adjusted as they have
been   promoted   according   to   Rules   on   the   recommendation   of   Union
of Public Service Commission by the Union of India.”
9. The   judgment   impugned   came   to   be   challenged   by   the   Union
of   India   before   this   Court   and   while   issuing   notice   dated   12 th
November   2007,   this   Court   directed   to   maintain   status   quo   in   the
meantime and because of the interim order passed by this Court for
all   practical   purposes,   officers   who   were   earlier   selected   and
appointed   in   the   IFS   cadre   in   1996   but   did   not   find   place   in   the
review   selection   committee   held   pursuant   to   which   the
appointments were made  by   notifications  dated  8 th
  July, 2005  and
5

4 th
/5 th
  October,   2005   were   de­facto   allowed   to   continue   in   the   IFS
cadre.  The relevant order of this Court dated 12 th
 November 2007 is
as under:­
“Issue   notice   on   the   application   for   condonation   of   delay   as
also on the special leave petition.
Status­quo   as   of   today   shall   be   maintained,   in   the
meantime.”
10. Pending   appeal   in   this   Court,   various   interlocutory
applications were filed seeking impleadment.   Pursuant thereto, 12
officers were impleaded as party respondents and all of them jointly
prayed   that   they   may   be   granted   the   same   benefits   as   being
extended   by   the  Division   Bench   of  the   High   Court  in   favour   of  the
1 st
  respondent   Mr.   Trilok   S.   Bhandari   on   whose   instance   the   writ
petition was filed.
11. It   is   informed   that   all   the   added   respondents   who   although
could  not  be  promoted  in  the  review  selection  committee  pursuant
to   which   appointments   were   made   by   notifications   dated   8 th
  July,
2005 and  4 th
/5 th
  October, 2005, were appointed in  IFS  against the
vacancies of subsequent years and lost their interest in the pending
6

appeal   and   it   is   contested   only   by   respondent   no.   13   who
unfortunately   could   not   be   appointed   against   the   subsequent   year
vacancies but was allowed to continue as de­facto officer in the IFS
Cadre because of the interim order passed by this Court dated 12 th
November, 2007 and while holding the post in the IFS cadre stood
retired from service in September 2013.  
12. It   is   further   informed   to   this   Court   that   as   a   member   of   the
IFS,   after   his   superannuation   in   September   2013,   he   is   getting   a
provisional pension and all other emoluments were paid to him as a
member of the IFS although the fact is that his appointment in the
cadre   of   IFS   was   quashed   and   set   aside   and   he   could   not   be
selected   in   the   review   selection   committee   pursuant   to   which
appointments were made  by   notifications  dated  8 th
  July, 2005  and
4 th
/5 th
 October, 2005 or against the vacancies of later years, but he
was   allowed   to   continue   de­facto   in   the   IFS   cadre   because   of   the
stay   order   passed   by   this   Court,   and   all   benefits   were   extended   to
him treating him to be the member of the IFS cadre.
13. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General, submits
that the appointments made on the recommendations of the review
7

selection committee by notifications dated 8 th
 July, 2005 and 4 th
/5 th
October,   2005   was   never   a   subject   matter   of   challenge   and   the
judgment   on   which   the   reliance   was   placed   of   this   Court   was
dealing with the appointments and selections made of the officers in
the Indian Administrative Service and while holding that clubbing of
vacancies   was   not   permissible   and   being   in   contravention   to
Regulation   5   of   Regulations   1955,   the   order   came   to   be   passed   in
exercise of power of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India for adjustment of the officers against the future vacancies,
was   of   no   assistance   and   the   High   Court   has   exceeded   its
jurisdiction   in   granting   such   omnibus   relief   which   was   in   clear
violation of the Regulations 1966.
14. Mr.   Ravindra   Raizada,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for
the State of UP submits that the officers who could not be selected
on   the   recommendations   of   the   review   selection   committee   in   the
year   2005   or   against   the   subsequent   year   vacancies   have   no   right
to continue to be a member of the IFS cadre but they were allowed
to continue because of the interim order passed by this Court in the
instant   appeal   preferred   at   the   instance   of   the   appellant   Union   of
8

India   and   mere   continuance   in   the   cadre   of   IFS   under   the   interim
order of this Court would not confer any right to claim relief, more
so,   when   the   recommendations   made   by   the   review   selection
committee was never a subject matter of challenge.
15. As   observed,   the   1 st
  respondent   Trilok   S.   Bhandari   stood
retired from service on 30 th
  November, 1996 and other officers who
were   impleaded   in   the   instant   appeal,   as   informed   to   this   Court,
were   appointed   in   the   IFS   cadre   against   the   vacancies   of
subsequent   years   and   the   only   officer   who   was   left   out   was
respondent   no.   13   who   could   not   be   selected   even   in   the
subsequent   year   vacancy   and   finally   retired   in   September,   2013
and this fact is not disputed that he was allowed to continue in the
IFS   cadre   because   of   the   interim   order   passed   by   this   Court
directing the parties to maintain status quo in the meantime by an
order dated 12 th
 November, 2007.
16. Ms.   Rekha   Pandey,   learned  counsel   appearing   for   respondent
no.   13   submits   that   he   was   allowed   to   continue   in   the   IFS   cadre
and   finally   retired   from   service   while   holding   the   post   as   an   IFS
officer,   at   the   same   time,   his   pension   and   other   emoluments   have
9

also been computed on the last pay drawn in the IFS cadre.  In the
given   circumstances,   learned   counsel   submits   that   there   is   no
dispute so far as factual matrix is concerned, as he has throughout
worked   in   IFS  cadre   and   retired  from   service,   in  the   peculiar   facts
and   circumstances   of   the   case,   his   service   conditions   may   be
protected   as   he   has   been   paid   his   retiral   benefits   and   getting   his
provisional pension as an IFS Officer.
17. We   have   called   upon   Mr.   Ravindra   Raizada,   learned   senior
counsel   appearing   for   the   State   of   UP   to   take   instructions   that   if
this   officer   would   not   have   been   allowed   to   continue   in   the   IFS
cadre and allowed in the cadre of State Forest Service, what benefits
he was entitled for when he finally retired in September 2013.
18. Learned counsel on instructions fairly submits that he was in
the grade pay of Rs. 6600 as officer in the IFS cadre but if he would
have   been   allowed   to   continue   as   State   Forest   Officer   in   1996,   he
would have been in the grade pay of Rs. 5400 but the officer junior
to   him   in  the  State   cadre(State  Forest  Service),  in  the  interregnum
period,   was   promoted   as   Deputy   Director   in   the   grade   pay   of   Rs.
6600   in   the   year   1997.     There   was   further   Assured   Career
10

Progression Scheme for the state officers on completion of 10 years
(Rs.6600), 6 years (Rs.7600) and 10 years (Rs.8700).   If this Officer
would   have   been   continued   to   be   a   member   of   the   State   Forest
Service,   and   his   junior   being   promoted   in   the   year   1997   in   the
grade   pay   of   Rs.   6600,   at   least   he   would   have   been   entitled   for
promotion   and   also   for   assured   career   progression   scheme   in
future.
19. It   is   not   disputed   that   respondent   no.   13   who   could   not   be
appointed   on   the   recommendations   of   the   review   selection
committee   in   the   year   2005   and   also   for   the   subsequent   year
vacancies   in   the   IFS   cadre   but   as   a   member   of   the   State   Forest
Service,   his   pay   scale   at   least   could   not   have   been   detrimental   to
his interest as what being paid to him as an IFS officer.   It cannot
be   denied   that   respondent   no.   13   who   could   not   be   appointed
against the subsequent year vacancies has no right to continue and
the   fact   is   that   the   officer   has   not   challenged   the   appointments
made on the recommendations of the review selection committee or
the recommendations made by the selection committee against the
vacancies of subsequent years.   At the same time, this fact cannot
11

be   ignored   that   he   was   allowed   to   continue   till   he   attained
superannuation   in   September   2013   as   a   de­facto   IFS   officer
because of the interim order passed by this Court.
20. After we have heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of
the   considered   view   that   the   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   is
unsustainable   in   law   for   the   reason   that   in   the   absence   of   the
recommendations made by the review selection committee pursuant
to   which   the   appointments   were   made   by   notifications   dated   8 th
July,   2005   and   4 th
/5 th
  October,   2005,   being   challenged,   there   was
no justification for the High Court to pass such omnibus directions
more   particularly   when   the   officer   on   whose   insistence   the   writ
petition   was   filed,   stood   retired   from   service   in   November   1996   on
attaining the age of superannuation and the judgment in   Union of
India   and   Others (supra)   on   which   the   Division   Bench   blindly
placed   reliance,   in   our   considered   view,   has   no   application   in   the
facts of the instant case.
21. Thus,   we   are   of   the   considered   view   that   the   judgment
impugned   dated   14 th
  November,   2006   of   the   Division   Bench   of   the
12

High   Court   is   unsustainable   and   deserves   to   be   quashed   and   set
aside.
22. At   the   given   time,   taking   into   consideration   the   seriatim   of
facts   which   has   been   brought   to   our   notice   and   other
officers(impleaded   respondents)   who   have   been   appointed   against
the subsequent year vacancies in IFS Cadre have lost their interest
and   so   far   as   respondent   no.   13   is   concerned,   who   has   contested
this matter before this Court, although was not selected against the
vacancies   of   subsequent   years   but   was   allowed   to   continue   as   an
Officer   of   the   IFS   cadre   for   all   practical   purposes,   remained   a   de­
facto member of the IFS cadre because of the interim order passed
by   this   Court   dated   12 th
  November,   2007   and   stood   retired   from
service   in   September   2013   as   an   IFS   officer,   while   exercising   our
power  under   Article  142 of  the  Constitution  of India,  we direct the
concerned   authorities   that   the   officer   may   be   treated   to   be   an
Officer of the IFS cadre and his pension and all other retiral benefits
be   computed   treating   him   to   be   a   member   of   the   IFS   cadre   for   all
practical purposes.
13

23. The   appeal   succeeds   and   accordingly   allowed.     The   judgment
of   the   High   Court   of   Uttarakhand   dated   14 th
  November,   2006   is
hereby   quashed   and   set   aside   while   protecting   the   rights   and
privileges availed by V.P. Singh, respondent no. 13, as afore­stated.
24. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
……………………………..J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
…………………………….J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 29, 2021
14