Supreme Court of India

TECH EXECUTIVE (ANTI POLLUTION) WELFARE ASSOCIATIONversusCOMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT DEPT. AND ANR.

Citation: 1997 INSC 252
Decided: 10 March 1997
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG T NANAVATI

Holding

Technical Anti‑Pollution Level Test Inspectors are not members of the statutory cadre of Motor Vehicle Inspectors and therefore cannot claim promotional parity; the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to direct policy or create promotional posts, and the contempt petition is dismissed.

Summary

The Technical Anti‑Pollution Level Test (TAPLT) Inspectors sought promotion on par with Motor Vehicle Inspectors (MVI) under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directed the government to create posts and promotional avenues for TAPLT inspectors, but the government later rejected the proposal. The TAPLT association filed a contempt petition alleging the government’s non‑compliance, which the CAT dismissed. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether TAPLT inspectors, who are not part of the statutory cadre of MVIs, could claim parity and whether the CAT could issue policy‑directing orders. The Court held that TAPLT inspectors are a separate, non‑statutory cadre and cannot claim parity with MVIs; policy decisions on promotions rest with the appropriate government, and the CAT lacks jurisdiction to create such avenues. Consequently, the contempt petition was rightly dismissed and the appeals were rejected.

Issues considered

Whether Technical Anti‑Pollution Level Test Inspectors are entitled to promotion parity with Motor Vehicle Inspectors under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989.
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal can direct the government to create promotional posts and avenues for a non‑statutory cadre.
Whether the contempt petition against the government for non‑implementation of the Tribunal’s order is maintainable.

Subjects

promotionstatutory cadreadministrative tribunal jurisdictioncontemptMotor Vehicles Actanti‑pollution inspectorsservice law

Judgment

·A          TECH. EXECUTIVE (ANTI POLLUTION) WELFARE
              ,           ASSOCIATION
                                         v.
           COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT DEPT. AND ANR.

                                MARCH 10, 1997
B
               -[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.)

          Service law :

C         Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 :

         Promotio11-Technical Anti Pollution level Test l11spectors-C/aiming
  promotion as Motor vehicle Inspectors-<.:entral Administrative Tribunal
  givi11g direction to Government to create posts and provide suitable promo-
D tional avenues-Mea11while Junior Motor Vehicle Inspectors promoted as
  Motor Vehicle Inspectors-Government turned down the proposal for creation
  of avenues for promotion to Technical A11ti-Pol/ution Level Test Inspec-
  tors-<.:onternpt petition dismissed by TribunaHield, under the Motor
  Vehicles Act, Cadre of Motor Vehicles Inspectors has statutory base-Motor
  Vehicles inspectors are disti11ct from TA.P.L. T.-The latter can not have any
E parity with statuto'5' Cadre Officers-Tribunal is not competent to give direc-
  tions to lay down the policy or to issue directions to create promotional
  avenues-It would be for the appropriate government to take policy
  decision-Tribunal was right in rejecting contempt petition-Contempt.

F          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1988-90
     of 1997.

           From the Judgment and order dated 17.7.96 of the Central Ad-
     ministrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. Nos. 2193/91, 3199/92 and 1329
G of 1993.
          M.N. Krishnamani, R. D. Upadhyay for the Appellant.

          Subhash Chandra Jain for the Respondents.

H         The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                      920
       TECH. EXECUTIVE (ANTI POLLUTION) WELFARE ASSN. v. COMMR. OFTPT. DEPTT.   921

     Leave granted.                                                                   A

      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.                                              B
      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 repre-
sentation made by the appellant to open a channel of promotion to
them, the Tribunal by order dated April 24, 1992 had directed the C
respondents to create posts and provide 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 Judgment and pointing out the D
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 Poliution Level Test Inspectors. The E
appellant again filed a petition for contempt which was dismissed. Thus
this appeal by special leave.

     It would be seen that, admittefdly, members of the appellant·
Association are Technical Anti-Pollution Level Test Inspectors. Under F
the Motor Vehicles Act, the cadre of Motor Vehicles Inspectors has
statutory based and, therefore, the Motor Vehicle Inspectors are dis-
tinct from T.A.P.L.T. Inspectors represented through the appellant-As-
sociation. When we had put a question to Shri Krishnamani, learned
senior counsel, whether the appellants are entitled to claim under the G
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 Govern-
ment to take policy decision. The Tribunal is not competent to give H
    922                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1997] 2 S.C.R.

A directions to lay down the policy or to issue directions to create promo-
    tional 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.
B
           The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

    R.P.                                                      Appeals dismissed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "promotion"Sign in to search