M A I N   N E W S

SC allows DIG-rank pay to 14 Punjab promotees
Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, April 15
In a major relief to fourteen promotee police officers of Punjab, posted as DIGs after their inclusion in the IPS cadre, the Supreme Court has approved the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the High Court awarding them salary commensurate to their rank, which was contested by the state government.

A Bench of Mr Justice H K Sema and Mr Justice R V Raveendran provided the relief to these officers, while rejecting an appeal of the Punjab Government, challenging the orders of the CAT and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, issued on April 19 and October 18, 2005 respectively.

The benefited officers are: Jagdish Kumar, R P Mittal, Paramjit Singh Gill, B K Uppal, Paramjit Singh Sarao, Tehal Singh Dhaliwal, Bhushan Kumar Garg, Roshan Lal Bhagat, Ishwar Chnder, Balbir Kumar Bawa, Parampal Singh, Nirmal Singh Dhillon, Shayma Lal and Kanwaljit Singh.

They were appointed as DSPs in July 1995, confirmed into the IPS cadre in October 1998 and orders for their posting in the rank of DIG were issued in July 2002. But the state government had refused to give them pay scale of the DIG rank and they continued to draw the salary as per the pay scale applicable to SSP or SP, the rank they were holding immediate before their new assignments.

The main ground for rejection of their plea for DIG-rank salary by the government was that they had not completed 14 years service in the rank of IPS officers, essential for them to be eligible for higher pay scale applicable to the DIG rank.

When they moved the CAT against the government order, it allowed their petition on April 19 last year with a direction to the state to give them DIG-rank pay scale, the same was upheld by the High Court.

The apex court accepted the contention of advocate Sudhir Walia, appearing for these police officers, that after being assigned the job of DIGs way back in July 2002 they had been discharging the duty as officers holding the same rank and, therefore, could not be denied the right to claim salary commensurate to the work they were discharging.

The court further agreed with Walia’s argument that the CAT and High Court had interpreted the Rule 8 of Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules, 1954 correctly to give the relief of higher salary to them.

However, the government counsel had contended that correct interpretation of the said Rule was that an officer, who was not actually “appointed” to a particular rank, could not claim the salary of that rank.

He said in the case of these officers, the orders were not for their “appointment or promotion” as DIG but only “transferring” them to the said post from the post of SSP or SP, which they were holding when the orders were issued. But the apex court was not impressed with this stand of the state government and rejected its appeal.