Restoration of revised IPS allotment year entitles officer to retrospective Selection Grade and consequential pensionary benefits.

The applicant, a retired IPS officer, was initially allotted 1999 as his year of allotment in the Tripura cadre and was granted Selection Grade with effect from 09 April 2012.

The respondents subsequently revised his allotment year from 1999 to 2000 and modified his Junior Administrative Grade accordingly, treating him as ineligible for Selection Grade because he retired on 31 December 2012 before completing 13 years of service.

Following the decision in Praveen Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, CWP No. 15798/2009, upheld by the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Home Affairs revised the allotment years of eligible Tripura Police Service officers.

By orders dated 24 October 2017 and 14 March 2018, the applicant’s allotment year was restored to 1999.

The applicant consequently sought restoration of Selection Grade with effect from 01 January 2012, along with consequential refixation of pay and pensionary benefits.

His representation was rejected by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Tripura, by order dated 05 March 2022, communicated on 24 August 2022, primarily on the ground that he had already retired.

He thereafter filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether, after restoration of the applicant’s IPS year of allotment from 2000 to 1999, he became entitled to Selection Grade upon completion of 13 years of service, notwithstanding his retirement on 31 December 2012?

Whether the rejection order dated 05 March 2022, denying restoration of Selection Grade and consequential pay and pensionary benefits, was legally sustainable?

The Tribunal applied the Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules, 2007 and the applicable IPS promotion guidelines, under which an officer in the Junior Administrative Grade becomes eligible for promotion to Selection Grade upon completion of 13 years of service.

It relied on the revised allotment orders issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs pursuant to Praveen Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, which restored the applicant’s year of allotment to 1999.

The Tribunal also relied on Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 2480, against arbitrary alteration or denial of an employee’s legally accrued pay-related benefits.

The Tribunal further referred to authorities concerning service benefits, fixation of seniority, and consideration of consequential pensionary relief, including Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, Union of India v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan, Major General H.M. Singh v. Union of India, and Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India.

The Tribunal found that restoration of the applicant’s allotment year to 1999 revived the service position on which his earlier grant of Selection Grade had been based.

Since the applicant had been treated as belonging to the 1999 batch and had already been granted Selection Grade in 2012, the subsequent cancellation based on the intervening allotment year of 2000 could not be sustained after the Ministry restored the original allotment year.

The respondents’ reliance on the applicant’s retirement before completing 13 years was therefore misplaced: that conclusion resulted solely from the erroneous or subsequently superseded allotment year of 2000.

The rejection order failed to give effect to the Ministry’s later restoration order and thereby unlawfully denied the applicant the consequential benefits attached to his correct service status.

Applying the principle in Bhagwan Shukla, the Tribunal held that the respondents could not retain the adverse alteration of the applicant’s pay-related benefits after the factual and administrative basis for that alteration had been removed.

It directed the respondents to grant the applicant Selection Grade in Pay Band-4 of ₹37,400–67,000 with Grade Pay of ₹8,700, at least with effect from 01 January 2012, and to revise his pay and pensionary benefits with consequential arrears.

The directions were to be implemented within four months from receipt of the order.

No order as to costs was made.