Tech.
Executive (Anti Pollution) Welfare Association. Vs. Commissioner of Transport
Dept. & ANR [1997] INSC 266 (10 March 1997)
K.
RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
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 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.
Back
Pages: 1 2
