Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Siba Prasad Khandayatray vs Aviation Research Center on 20 November, 2025
1 O.A.No. 260/00080 of 2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00080 of 2021
Reserved on 19.11.2025 Pronounced on 20.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Siba Prasad Khandayatray, S/o-Kailash Chandra
Khandayatray, R/o-At: Niladri Vihar, Po-Nayabazar,
Cuttack-753004, Odisha at present working as JFA
(PMA), Para Dispatch Section, ARC, Charbatia, PIN-
754028.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through the Special
Secretary, ARC Hq. Cabinet Secretariat, East Block-V, RK
Puram, New Delhi-110066.
2. Director General of Security, Aviation Research Centre,
Cabinet Secretariat, East Block-V, RK Puram, New Delhi-
110066.
3. Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training,
Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
4. Joint Director (A), ARC, Charbatia, PIN-754028, Odisha.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. P.K. Das, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. B. R. Swain, Counsel
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera,
o=Central Administrative Tribunal
Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL,
Behera [email protected]
Date: 2025.11.20 15:33:13 +05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/00080 of 2021
O R D E R
SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J):
Heard Mr. P. K. Das, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. B. R. Swain, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Perused the pleadings taken by the applicant in the O.A. and rejoinder filed by the applicant & in the counter filed by the respondents, so also the documents placed in support thereof.
3. At the outset learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the issue cropped into, in this O.A., came up for consideration before this Bench in O.A. No.76/2021 filed by Shri Biswajit Pandab. This Bench after taking note of the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal and Hon'ble Apex Court, dismissed the matter vide order dated 24.09.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant contested the above said submission.
4. Therefore, now the issue arises for examination as to whether the facts and issues decided by this Bench in O.A. No76/2021 is similar to that of the present O.A. Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.20 15:33:13 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/00080 of 2021
5. The relevant portion of the order of this Bench dated 24.09.2021 passed in O.A. No76/2021 (Shri Biswajit Pandab Vs. Union of India & Ors.) is quoted below:-
"8. The present challenge of the applicant to re-organise the cadre structures and effect merger of the cadre or create new cadres is a matter of policy. We are of the view that the respondents, as an employer, has every right to re-organise the cadre structures and effect merger of the cadre or create new cadres based on the necessity and work requirement, the same being a policy matter. Therefore, the exercise undertaken by the respondents following the VI CPC recommendation by which Group-D posts were abolished and converted into Group-C posts and laying down revised charter of duties of erstwhile Group-D posts appears perfectly justified. The merger of cadres into one cadre of MTS based on their assessment cannot be faulted with. Therefore, we hold that the respondents are well within their right in reorganising the erstwhile cadre and merger into one and the orders impugned in this OA cannot be held as unjustified. This view is supported by the decision of this Tribunal dated 25.04.2024, in OA No. 176/2016 (Manoranjan Mishra Vs. UOI & Ors.), we do not find any justification to differ from the view already taken earlier.
9. Hence, going by the facts and law discussed above, coupled with the law of precedent, we find no merit in this O.A and, therefore, this OA is liable to be dismissed and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs."
6. The applicant has filed the present O.A. praying for quashing of the Letter No. IX(1)/ARC/P.VII/2019-649, dated 11.09.2020 inter alia Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.20 15:33:13 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/00080 of 2021 stating that he joined in service under the respondents as PMA on 12.10.2007; subsequently, on 19.11.2014 the ACA was redesignated as Junior Field Assistant (PMA). Thereafter, Cabinet Secretariat issued Notification No. 10/1/2020-EA-II-1136 dated 13.07.2020 revising the Recruitment Rules thereby redesignating the JFA (PMA) as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) and the aforesaid notification was given effect to by respondent No.2 vide Circular No. IX(1)/ARC/P.VII/2019-649, dated 11.09.2020, which is bad in law. According to him, the post of PMA was in Group-C category and MTS was in Group-D category whereas by the notification clubbing the PMA with MTS amounts to downgrading the status of PMA, which is not permissible in law. It is submitted that the applicant was appointed as PMA, which was subsequently redesignated as JFA (PMA) and the duty of the said post are somehow technical in nature, they work under the Jr. Technical Officer as Para maintenance Assistant and the duties of the MTS is/was basically of Tailoring, Cobbler, Cook, Porter works, Painter, Horse keeping etc. Now, by virtue of bringing JFA (PMA) with the MTS, the nature and duties of JFA (PMA) changes, which is bad in law. Therefore, according to the Ld. Counsel Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.20 15:33:13 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/00080 of 2021 for the applicant, the notification issued by the Government is liable to be set aside.
7. In O.A. No.76/2021 the applicant Shri Biswajit Pandab prayed for quashing the Letter No. IX(1)/ARC/P.VIII/2019-649, dated 11.09.2020 inter alia stating that he joined in service under the respondents as Para Maintenance Assistant (PMA) on 06.05.2013; subsequently, on 19.11.2014 the PMA was redesignated as Junior Field Assistant (Para Maintenance Assistant). Thereafter, Cabinet Secretariat issued Notification No. 10/1/2020-EA-II-1136 dated 13.07.2020 revising the Recruitment Rules thereby redesignating the JFA (PMA) as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) and the aforesaid notification was given effect to by respondent No.2 vide Circular No. IX(1)/ARC/P.VIII/2019- 649, dated 11.9.2020, which is bad in law. According to him, the post of PMA was in Group-C category and MTS was in Group-D category whereas by the notification clubbing the PMA with MTS amounts to downgrading the status of PMA, which is not permissible in law.
8. On examination of both the matters, we do not see any such distinguished facts and materials to take a different view than the view taken in the O.A. Hence we hold that the facts and issues in both the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.20 15:33:13 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/00080 of 2021 matters are same and similar. Hence by applying the doctrine of Judicial Precedence the O.A. stands dismissed. Pending M.As if any, is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
KB/PS
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera,
o=Central Administrative Tribunal
Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL,
Behera [email protected]
Date: 2025.11.20 15:33:13 +05'30'