Mumbai, Jan 29 (UNI) The three-month extension was granted to the Maharashtra Director General of Police Dr P S Pasricha and Mumbai Police Commissioner D N Jadhav as they were handling ''something of great national importance, like investigations into some terrorist attacks'', Advocate General Ravi Kadam today informed the Bombay High Court.
Kadam told the division bench, comprising Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar and Justice J P Devdhar, that the concerned proviso of the All India Service Rules, 1960, should be read as an exhaustive one and itself should be relaxed in case of such officers because public interest is at the highest priority.
Additional Solicitor General Rajendra Raghuvanshi also reiterated that public interest was one of the prime basis for granting extension to the DGP and the Mumbai CP, while replying to the petition filed by R R Tripathi and Gaurang Damani, challenging the extension granted to the cops. But, the judges turned him down by saying the record submitted by Union Home Ministry reveals nothing to show how it applied its mind. Raghuvanshi also submitted an intelligence report to the court, citing it as basis for the decision of the Union Home Ministry.
Eaerlier, petitioner's counsel Y P Singh contended that proviso 16(1) of All India Service Rules provides for extension to government officers after superannuation only if they were handling work related to Budget or were members of some important Committee, which was about to be wound up. Only exception to the proviso was that of Chief Secretaries of states, in whose case relaxation was provided in the proviso, he added.
Mr Singh also questioned validity of the states' proposal to the Union Home Ministery, which was signed by the Chief Minister adding, at the most it could be treated as private letter written by the Chief minister to the Union Home Minister and nothing else. But, Kadam countered this averment, saying that Chief Minister as a minister was heading General Administration Department and the proposal was very much in consonance with rules of business.
During the course of hearing, the judges also asked as to whether it was proper on part of state government to implement a proviso which benefits one officer and hurts hundreds others.
UNI XR OBB SB HT1948