UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST THROUGH THE SECRETARY v. TRILOK S. BHANDARI INSC 535

Name of the case: UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST THROUGH THE SECRETARY v. TRILOK S. BHANDARI INSC Year decided: 29 September, 2021 Facts: Born on 16 September 1965, Trilok S. Bhandari was made a member of the State Forest Service of the Uttar Pradesh, where he remained, until he was promoted in the Indian Forest Service (IFS) on 16 September 1996. To promote him thus, he aggregated vacancies from 1984 to 1996, which later became controversial for having violated the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations of 1966, which prescribed consideration for vacancies on a year‐to‐year basis. A review selection process was then initiated in 2005, due to this irregularity. Bhandari was not selected for the IFS during this review, and by that time, he too had retired on November 30, 1996. Reacting to this, Bhandari filed a writ petition to adjust him in cadre and other associated benefits on the basis that the SC decision in Union of India v. Like Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah, a case in Indian Administrative Service with similar issues. Issue: 1. Trilok S. Bhandari, who was promoted to Indian Forest Service (IFS) through an improper aggregation of vacancies and excluded in a review selection process, whether he was entitled to adjustment in the IFS cadre and consequent retirement benefits especially since he had retired before the review process Decision: The Union of India's appeal to the Supreme Court to dismiss the High Court ruling which had imposed a transfer on Trilok S. Bhandari to the Indian Forest Service (IFS) succeeded. The Court said that the review selection committee's 2005 recommendations to remove Bhandari were never challenged and the committee thus stood by them. Under Article 142 of the Constitution the Court used its authority to ensure full justice, both in view of interim orders resulting in de facto retirement constituting of Bhandari as a de facto IFS official. His retirement benefits were to be calculated as if he had been an IFS member so, for example, his pension. Majority Decision Reasoning: The Supreme Court held that the way vacancies were added up for several years for promotion to the Indian Forest Service (IFS) violated the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966 that provide that the vacancies shall be considered on a year to year basis and not in the aggregate. Therefore, the omission of Trilok S. Bhandari from the review selection in 2005 was indeed according to right procedure. The Court said Bhandari did not challenge the recommendations of the review selection committee, rendering them unassailable. In this case, the Court distinguished it from the Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah decision, concerning the Indian Administrative Service, since its principles did not apply by extension to the IFS. The Court, however, took note of the fact that in the meantime Bhandari, though a qualified IFS officer, had been working as a de facto IFS officer due to interim orders and had retired in that capacity, and took suo motu powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant him relief. It said that his pension and other retirement benefits should be worked out as if he had been a bona fide member of the IFS and took an even-handed approach of recognizing the procedural irregularity but with respect to fairness and justice. Dissenting Opinion Reasoning: In this case, there was no dissenting judgment. The ruling was unanimous. While deciding the merits of the case and exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court rendered a judgment to safeguard justice for Trilok S. Bhandari by directing that benefits be calculated assuming that he had been a valid member of the IFS. Impact of the case: The present case serves notice of strict compliance with regulations specifying that promotions in the Indian Forest Service (IFS) are to be filled only in accordance with the vacancies to be filled in a particular year and not in successive years. The judgment reinforces the transparency and fairness of the promotion process through stressing procedural compliance. The Supreme Court also pays attention to the Article 142 of the Constitution with which the Supreme Court ensures justice although Trilok S. Bhandari has not de facto served in the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court granted retirement benefits to him in view of the interim orders. As in other cases, the decision based on the decision that matters of different civil services like Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and India Foreign Service (IFS), principles which can be applicable to one service may not be automatically applicable to other service. The judgment also paves a way ahead for tackling those where people have performed in jobs with legal suspensions of enforcement, so that there is an equal solution that at the same time respects regulatory standards. It is in the vain hope that this ruling will force administrative reforms that prevent future disputes and lead to timely and lawful promotions.