http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: TECH. EXECUTIVE (ANTI POLLUTION) WELFARE ASSOCIATION.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT DEPT. & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.