Central Government must decide on proforma promotion after High Court's explicit directions.

The applicant, Shri Sheo Prasad Ram, a direct recruit IPS officer of the 1974 batch allotted to the Assam segment of the Assam-Meghalaya joint cadre, was on Central deputation as IGP (RPF) from August 1, 2000.

His junior, B.P. Rao, IPS, was promoted to Additional DGP on December 7, 2002, and the applicant was given proforma promotion with all benefits.

Subsequently, Shri W.R. Marbaniang, IPS of the 1975 batch in the Meghalaya sector, was promoted as Additional DGP Meghalaya on May 17, 2002, without considering the applicant's case, leading to a grievance regarding the denial of proforma promotion from this date.

Upon repatriation, the applicant was posted as Additional DGP of Assam on August 17, 2005, and promoted as DGP on May 22, 2008, prospectively.

The Central Government had suggested creating an All India Service of Officers for both segments of the joint cadre for promotion based on combined seniority, but no action was taken, leading the applicant to file OA No. 220 of 2009, which was dismissed.

A subsequent WP(C) No. 804 of 2011 before the Guwahati High Court directed the Central Government to consider benefits for the period between March 14, 2005, and May 22, 2008, including pensionary benefits, acknowledging that illegal promotion was made with their knowledge in 2005.

Pursuant to this, the applicant submitted representations, and the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a communication on September 30, 2019, enclosing a letter dated May 6, 2019, which the applicant alleged did not understand or deliberately ignored the High Court's directions.

Whether the impugned communication dated May 6, 2019 (Annexure A1) should be set aside.

Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to promote the applicant to the cadre of DGP with effect from March 14, 2005, with all consequential benefits.

Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to revise the applicant's pension and pensionary benefits by reckoning the revision of his pay and allowances due to promotion to DGP from March 14, 2005.

Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to release the amounts due to the applicant with interest.

Whether the Ministry of Home Affairs adequately complied with the Guwahati High Court's directions in Annexure A5 by issuing Annexure A1.

The court applied the principle of judicial review to assess compliance with a higher court's previous order.

It relied on the directions issued by the Guwahati High Court in Annexure A5, which mandated the Central Government to "consider all aspects" and "take a decision in accordance with law" regarding the applicant's proforma promotion and pensionary benefits, especially in light of acknowledged "illegal promotion" of a junior officer.

The Tribunal asserted its competency to set aside orders that failed to comply with superior court directives.

The Tribunal found that the Central Government's communication (Annexure A1) did not embody the specific directions of the Hon'ble High Court in Annexure A5.

The High Court had explicitly instructed the Central Government to "consider whether the benefits either for the lost period between 14.3.2005 and 22.5.2008 for all benefits or to count the said period in the promoted post i.e. for the pensionary benefits is required to be made by them and pass appropriate orders" after considering all aspects, including the illegality of the junior's promotion.

However, Annexure A1 merely stated the Union Government's "opinion" and its "stand" taken previously, without reaching a definitive "decision" or fully addressing the admitted facts to remedy the situation as directed by the High Court.

The Tribunal concluded that the Central Government, despite being aware and having the competency to undo the wrong, had failed to comply with the High Court's mandate for a conclusive decision.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside Annexure A1 and directed the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders in accordance with the High Court's directions (Annexure A5) within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

The Original Application was allowed to this extent.