Supreme Court Ruling on Promotion and Retiral Dues Dispute

In a significant legal decision, the Supreme Court resolved a dispute concerning promotion and retiral dues for a retired officer who held the rank of Inspector General (IG). The court directed the computation and release of the officer’s retiral dues based on his retirement rank. This ruling comes after a prolonged legal battle between the concerned officer and the authorities. #SupremeCourt #LegalCase #Promotion #Retirement #JusticeServed


  • A Medical Board was constituted at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences on 4 January 2013, but the appellant did not present himself for medical examination.
  • Due to an interim order passed by the Court, the appellant continued to work as IG until his retirement on 31 January 2016.
  • A Review Medical Board in June 2012 assigned the appellant a SHAPE 2 (T-24) categorization.
  • In August 2012, the appellant was examined at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and given a medical categorization of S1H1A1P1 (o024)E1.
  • In February 2013, a Medical Board reported the appellant to be in the SHAPE 2 (Permanent) category.
  • The appellant’s claim for promotion to the rank of Inspector General of Police is the subject of the appeal.
  • On 3 April 2013, the promotion order was withdrawn, and the appellant was reverted to the rank of DIG.
  • Despite the chequered history of the case, the appellant was granted promotion as an IG in September 2012 based on a report from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital.
  • A Committee constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs examined a report from July 2014 regarding the appellant.
  • During the proceedings, in September 2015, the Court intervened in the matter.
  • A DPC was convened in October 2015, and the result is sealed.
  • The appellant, who joined the service in 1976, was holding the rank of Deputy Inspector General in the CRPF.
  • Annual Medical Examinations in June 2011 and January 2012 categorized the appellant as unfit for promotion.
  • A supplementary Departmental Promotion Committee was directed to consider the appellant for promotion to the rank of Additional DGP, CRPF.
  • Status quo directed to be maintained by parties until further orders on 13 November 2014.
  • Order of reversion stayed by High Court on 9 April 2013.
  • Appellant continued to work as IG due to stay of reversion.
  • Both Single Judge and Division Bench rejected appellant’s plea for substantive promotion to the rank of IG.

Also Read: Legal Analysis: Sheikh Noorul Hassan vs. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh – Permissibility of Subsequent Pleading in Election Petition Proceedings


  • Mr. Lekhi argued that the appellant’s medical report from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital needed to be reviewed by the Medical Board of CRPF according to standing orders.
  • He mentioned that the appellant’s case was reviewed by AIIMS and a Committee from the Ministry of Home Affairs, concluding he was in SHAPE 3 (Permanent) category.
  • Mr. Lekhi contended that any salary paid during the appellant’s tenure as an IG should not be recovered, and retiral dues should be based on his actual rank.
  • He argued against further promotion consideration and questioned the need to reevaluate the appellant for the role of Additional DGP.
  • Mr. Patwalia, representing the appellant, criticized the rejection of the appellant’s categorization by Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital.
  • He urged for the sealed cover from the DPC’s consideration to be opened for potential promotion appeal by the appellant.
  • Mr. Patwalia highlighted the appellant’s successful tenure in Jammu and Kashmir as an IG and emphasized fair treatment regarding retiral benefits.
  • Additionally, Mr. Patwalia pointed out the appellant’s reversion from IG to DIG without proper notice or opportunity to be heard.

Also Read: CRPF Act: Validity of Rule 27 for Compulsory Retirement – Case of Head Constable vs. CRPF


  • The appellant continued to work as an IG rank officer until his superannuation due to an interim order.
  • The reversion order was passed without issuing a show cause notice or providing an opportunity to be heard.
  • During the court proceedings, the reversion order was stayed allowing the appellant to work for nearly four years.
  • This Court directed maintenance of status quo during the appeal process after the dismissal of the Writ Petition and Letters Patent Appeal.
  • The crucial point is that the appellant worked as an IG until being reverted to a DIG rank.
  • After reviewing the record and the Medical Board report, no further directions will be issued for the appellant’s consideration for the rank of Additional DGP.
  • The matter is considered settled at this point.
  • In the interest of justice, the Court directs that the appellant’s retiral dues should be computed and released based on his retirement from service at the rank of IG.

Also Read: DAMEPL vs. DMRC: Curative Petition and Arbitral Award Restoration


  • No order as to costs was given.
  • Sealed cover to be returned to the respondents.
  • Second limb of the submissions by Mr. Lekhi, the learned ASG, accepted.
  • Appellant’s claim for promotion as Additional DGP not accepted.
  • Retiral dues of the appellant to be computed and released within two months.
  • Appellant shall have no further claim for promotion as Additional DGP.


Case Number: C.A. No.-000266-000266 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *