IMPLEMENTATION OF CADRE RESTRUCTURING WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT.
The CAT , Hyderabad had decided for implementation of CR of IAS cadre with retrospective effect. This was accepted by Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh. But CAT Lukhnow rejected for implementation of CR retrospectively.
Supreme Court of India
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2651-52 of 2010
Judge(s): R.V. RAVEENDRAN,ASOK KUMAR GANGULY...
Date of Judgment: Tuesday, March 23, 2010
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Versus HEMRAJ SINGH CHAUHAN & ORS.
Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 — Rule 4(2) — cadre review — respondents completed 8 years as members of 'State Civil Services' — the respondents contended that the cadre review of the I.A.S. of Uttar Pradesh cadre was due in 2003 and was delayed by the State of Uttar Pradesh in 2005 as a result of which some of the S.C.S. Officers were deprived of their promotion to the I.A.S., therefore, the cadre review which was conducted in August 2005 should have been given effect from April 2003 so that the respondents could be considered for promotion against the promotion quota — the Central Administrative (CAT) dismissed the application of the respondents/appellants and held that the cadre review carried out in 2005 cannot be given retrospective effect — High Court set aside the judgement of CAT and subsequent notification — appeal — whether re-examination on the strength and composition of cadre in the State of Uttar Pradesh had taken place in accordance with the mandate of Rule 4 sub-rule (2) — both the Central and State Government authorities under Rule 4(2) of the Cadre Rules accepted on principle that cadre review in Uttar Pradesh was due in 2003 — this Court held that the statutory duty cast on the State Government and the Central Government to undertake the cadre review exercise every five years is ordinarily mandatory subject to exceptions — neither the appellants nor the State of U.P. justified its action of not undertaking the exercise within the statutory time, thus, failure on the part of the authorities in carrying out the timely exercise of cadre review — held the provision of Rule 4(2) cannot be construed to have any retrospective operation and it will operate prospectively — no illegality in the directions of the High Court — appeals disposed — no costs.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2651-52 of 2010
Judge(s): R.V. RAVEENDRAN,ASOK KUMAR GANGULY...
Date of Judgment: Tuesday, March 23, 2010
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Versus HEMRAJ SINGH CHAUHAN & ORS.
Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 — Rule 4(2) — cadre review — respondents completed 8 years as members of 'State Civil Services' — the respondents contended that the cadre review of the I.A.S. of Uttar Pradesh cadre was due in 2003 and was delayed by the State of Uttar Pradesh in 2005 as a result of which some of the S.C.S. Officers were deprived of their promotion to the I.A.S., therefore, the cadre review which was conducted in August 2005 should have been given effect from April 2003 so that the respondents could be considered for promotion against the promotion quota — the Central Administrative (CAT) dismissed the application of the respondents/appellants and held that the cadre review carried out in 2005 cannot be given retrospective effect — High Court set aside the judgement of CAT and subsequent notification — appeal — whether re-examination on the strength and composition of cadre in the State of Uttar Pradesh had taken place in accordance with the mandate of Rule 4 sub-rule (2) — both the Central and State Government authorities under Rule 4(2) of the Cadre Rules accepted on principle that cadre review in Uttar Pradesh was due in 2003 — this Court held that the statutory duty cast on the State Government and the Central Government to undertake the cadre review exercise every five years is ordinarily mandatory subject to exceptions — neither the appellants nor the State of U.P. justified its action of not undertaking the exercise within the statutory time, thus, failure on the part of the authorities in carrying out the timely exercise of cadre review — held the provision of Rule 4(2) cannot be construed to have any retrospective operation and it will operate prospectively — no illegality in the directions of the High Court — appeals disposed — no costs.
