Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Narendra Kumar Dabar, joined the Indian Coast Guard as a Navik on 3 January 1986. He successfully qualified for the Air Crew Diver (ACD) course conducted by the Indian Navy and was appointed as an Air Crew Driver on 12 June 1992. By an order dated 6 January 2006, the respondents informed the petitioner that he had been reverted from the ACD cadre to his parent cadre and was not entitled to draw flying pay and other allowances/benefits of the ACD cadre with effect from 15 January 2006. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The court noted that similar orders had been passed earlier against other ACDs, which were challenged before the Calcutta High Court and the Madras High Court. In those cases, the courts had set aside the reversion orders, holding that policy decisions should not be given retrospective effect. The respondents had reinstated the petitioner and other ACDs on 28 December 2005, but then passed a fresh reversion order on 6 January 2006. The court held that the petitioner had a vested right to continue in the ACD cadre, and the policy decision could not be applied retrospectively to his prejudice. The reversion order was quashed, and the respondents were directed to continue the petitioner in the ACD cadre with all consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reversion - Retrospective Effect - Policy Decision - The petitioner, a Navik in the Indian Coast Guard, was appointed as an Air Crew Diver (ACD) in 1992. In 2006, he was reverted to his parent cadre based on a policy decision. The court held that the policy decision could not be given retrospective effect to the prejudice of the petitioner, as he had a vested right to continue in the ACD cadre. The reversion order was quashed. (Paras 1-3) B) Service Law - Vested Rights - Legitimate Expectation - The petitioner had successfully qualified for the ACD course and was appointed as an ACD. He had a legitimate expectation to continue in that cadre. The respondents could not unilaterally revert him without following due process. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reversion of the petitioner from Air Crew Diver (ACD) cadre to parent cadre based on a policy decision can be given retrospective effect, and whether the petitioner had a vested right to continue in the ACD cadre.
Final Decision
The court quashed the reversion order dated 6.1.2006 and directed the respondents to continue the petitioner in the ACD cadre with all consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Retrospective application of policy
- vested rights
- legitimate expectation
- service conditions
- reversion without hearing
