Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
TECH. EXECUTIVE (ANTI POLLUTION) WELFARE ASSOCIATION.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT DEPT. & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/03/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
In view of the explanation given in the application for
restoration of special leave petitions dismissed on 11th
December, 1996 for default of non appearance of the counsel,
although the case was called out twice, the order is
recalled.
We have heard the counsel on merit. The appellant
Association claims promotions of pollution Level Test
Inspectors on par with Motor Vehicles Inspectors under the
Motor Vehicles Act. Pursuant to a representation made by the
appellant to open a channel of promotion to them , the
Tribunal by order dated April 24, 1992 had directed the
respondents to create posts and provided suitable
promotional avenues and to set time for the said purpose. In
the meanwhile, when the junior Motor Vehicles Inspectors
were being considered for promotion by the D.P.C. as Motor
Vehicle Inspectors, the appellant filed a petition in the
Tribunal for implementation of the judgement and pointing
out the contempt. Since the respondents, in the meanwhile,
promoted motor Vehicle Inspectors, the appellant filed the
application stating that the respondents had violated the
order of the Tribunal. In the meanwhile, the Government have
turned down the proposal for creation of the avenues for
promotion of Anti-Pollution Level Test Inspectors. The
appellant again filed a petition for contempt which was
dismissed. Thus this appeal by special leave.
It would been seen that, admittedly, members of the
appellant-Association are Technical Anti-Pollution Level
Test Inspectors. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the cadre of
Motor Vehicle Inspectors has statutory base and, therefor,
the Motor Vehicle Inspectors are distinct from T.A.P.L.T.
Inspectors represented through the appellant-Association.
When we had put a question to Shri Krishnamani, learned
senior counsel, whether the appellants are entitled to claim
under the statutory rules, to be on par with junior Motor
Vehicle Inspectors, he admitted that they are not members of
the same cadre or service and are not governed by the Rules.
Therefore, they cannot have any parity with a statutory
cadre officers. It would be for the appropriate Government
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
to take policy decision. The Tribunal is not competent to
give directions to lay down the policy or to issue
directions to create promotional avenues. Such a direction
would amount to entrenching upon area of policy making which
is exclusively within the purview of the appropriate
Government. The Tribunal, therefore, was right in rejecting
the application and holding that there was no contempt.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.