Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pooran Lal vs Cabinet Secretariat on 27 May, 2025
1
Item No. 31
Court-2 OA No. 2726/2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No. 2726/2018
MA No. 2240/2024
Reserved on: 29.04.2025
Pronounced on: 27.05.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
1. Pooran Lal, Aged 51 years,
S/o Shri Ram Swaroop,
R/o B-27A, Pochan Pur Extension,
Dwarka Sector-23, Delhi.
2. Madan Lal, Aged 56 years,
S/o Shri Kanhiya Lal,
R/o 55-A, DDA Flat,
Pandava Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Ashok Kumar, Aged 55 years,
S/o Shri Malaha Ram,
R/o H.No. 207, Star Apartment,
Sector-9, Rohini, New Delhi.
4. Vinod Kumar, Aged 52 years,
S/o Shri Malaha Ram,
R/o 1238, Mukharjee Nagar,
New Delhi.
5. S.N. Pandey, Aged 53 years,
S/o Shri Tulsi Ram Pandey,
R/o B-216, Kutub Vihar Phase-I,
Goyla Diary, New Delhi.
6. Om Prakash, Aged 53 years,
S/o Late Shri Sundar Ram,
R/o 2066, Lodhi Road Complex, New Delhi.
2
Item No. 31
Court-2 OA No. 2726/2018
7. M.L. Meena, Aged 53 years,
S/o Shri Parbhati Lal Meena,
R/o H.No. 8A, Block-B, Roshan Vihar,
Part-II, Najafgarh, Delhi.
8. P.N. Tripathey, Aged 53 years,
S/o Late Shri S.V. Tiwari,
R/o G-18, Nanakpura, New Delhi.
9. Sujan Singh, Aged 51 years,
S/o Late Shri Pratap Singh,
R/o H-285, Nanakpura, New Delhi.
10. S.P. Srivastava, Aged 53 years,
S/o Shri V.N. Srivastava,
R/o 101/11, Sector-1, Pushp Vihar,
New Delhi.
11. Surender Singh, Aged 54 years,
S/o Shri Zile Singh,
R/o B-61, Motibah-I, New Delhi.
12. Subhash Chand, Aged 56 years,
S/o Shri Roop Chand,
R/o 129/18, Friends Colony,
Gurugram.
13. P.K. Tripathy, Aged 44 years,
S/o Shri Harihar Tripathy,
R/o B-13, Kutub Vihar Phase-I,
Goyla Diary, New Delhi.
14. S. Majumdar, Aged 47 years,
S/o Shri Sudhir Majumdar,
R/o C-108, Netaji Nagar, New Delhi.
15. Jagdish Prasad, Aged 45 years,
S/o Shri Ram Chander,
R/o 119, R.K. Puram, Sector-3,
New Delhi.
3
Item No. 31
Court-2 OA No. 2726/2018
16. Bajender Singh, Aged 44 years,
S/o Shri Randher Singh,
R/o VPO-Kesrenti, Distt. Rohtak,
Haryana.
17. P.K. Dhoria, Aged 31 years,
S/o Shri Inder Raj,
R/o RZ-64/B, Roshan Garden,
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
18. Lalit Kumar, Aged 34 years,
S/o Shri Duli Chand,
R/o Vill-Saini Khera,
Near Signature Tower, Sector-30, Gurugram.
19. S.K. Bhatt, Aged 34 years,
S/o Shri Shirendra Kumar Bhatt,
R/o RZ-240/294, Gali No.4,
Geetanjali Park, West Sagarpur, New Delhi.
20. Sunil Kumar Nagar, Aged 36 years,
S/o Shri Lekh Ram,
R/o 12, Dairy Farm, Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi.
21. Mahesh Rana, Aged 34 years,
S/o Shri Om Prakash,
R/o H.No. 272, Kh. No.1085,
Vill.-Siraspur, New Delhi.
22. Ajit Singh, Aged 34 years,
S/o Shri Shiv Dayal,
R/o Vill-Rampura, Distt & Teh Rewari, Haryana.
23. Harish Kumar, Aged 29 years,
S/o Shri Om Prakash,
R/o B-30, New Gopal Nagar,
Dhansa Road, Najafgarh, Delhi.
24. Ranvir Bhatti, Aged 34 years,
S/o Shri Khem Chand,
R/o VPO-Tigaon Distt. Faridabad, Haryana.
4
Item No. 31
Court-2 OA No. 2726/2018
25. Arun Kumar, Aged 30 years,
S/o Shri Suresh Kumar,
R/o Vill. & PO-Kanti,
Distt. Mahendragarh, Haryana.
26. Vishnu Prakash, Aged 30 years,
S/o Shri Om Prakash,
R/o Vill-Jasana, PO-Badarpur Road,
Distt. & Teh Faridabad.
27. Gautam Kumar, Aged 33 years,
S/o Shri Gandhi Ram,
R/o H.N.201, Kasturba Nagar,
O-Block, New Delhi.
28. Yatendar Singh, Aged 29 years,
S/o Shri Yoginder Singh,
R/o VPO-Damdama Lake,
Teh Sohna, Distt. Gurugram.
29. Manmohan Singh, Aged 29 years,
S/o Shri Jaspal Singh,
R/o N-328, Kasturba Nagar,
New Delhi.
30. Sajjan Kumar, Aged 27 years,
S/o Shri Rajesh Kumar,
R/o Vill. & PO : Ladpur, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana.
31. Sunil Kumar, Aged 31 years,
S/o Shri Bhoop Chand,
R/o VPO-Bhainsrawli, Teh-Ballabhgarh,
Distt. Faridabad.
32. Sandeep, Aged 29 years,
S/o Shri Raj Karan,
R/o VPO-Kherla, Distt. Gurugram, Haryana.
33. Pankaj Nagar, Aged 27 years,
S/o Shri Karambir Nagar,
R/o VPO-Tigaon Faridabad, Haryana.
5
Item No. 31
Court-2 OA No. 2726/2018
34. Sandeep Solanki, Aged 30 years,
S/o Shri Haripal Singh,
R/o Vill-Saini Khera, Near Signature Tower,
Sector 30, Gurugram, Haryana.
35. Pritam Acharjee
Aged 26 years
S/o Sh. Nityananda Acharjee
R/o Vill-Madhuban, Distt. Sepahijala, Tripura-799181
36. Pankaj Kumar Das, aged 33 years
S/o Sh. Bansidhar Das
R/o H.No. 389, Room No. 35, Purani Rangpuri Road
Mahipaplur, New Delhi-110037 ... Applicants
(By Advocate: Sh. U Srivastava)
VERSUS
1. The Director General of Security, Directorate General of Security,
O/o The Director Aviation Research Center(Cabinet
Secretariat), East Block-V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi
2. The Special Secretary, Aviation Research Center
(Cabinet Secretariat) East Block-V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. R.K. Jain)
6
Item No. 31
Court-2 OA No. 2726/2018
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) By way of the present Original Application (OA) filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:
"(a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present O.A. before their Lordships for the proper adjudication the matter in the interest of justice.
(b) Quash and setting aside the impugned orders dt.
20.04.18 further directing the respondents to consider and finalize the case of the applicants/Aircraft Assistants, for amendment of recruitment rules and cadre review/change of cadre to executive cadre, creating promotional avenues accordingly as per the relevant rules and instructions as well as the mandatory provision of law.
(c) to allow the present O.A. of the applicant with all other consequential benefits and cost.
(d) any other fit and proper relief may also be granted.
2. In response to notice, counter reply on behalf of respondents has been filed. By way of the counter reply, the respondents have disputed and denied the claim of the applicants. The applicants have filed rejoinder and have reiterated their claim.
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance, we have also perused the pleadings available on record.
4. The applicants are aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not finalizing the cadre restructuring and creation of promotional avenues and an order dated 20.04.2018. It is undisputed that the applicants had approached this Tribunal earlier by way of 7 Item No. 31 Court-2 OA No. 2726/2018 filing OA No. 183/2018 which was disposed of at the admission stage itself vide order dated 01.02.2018 directing the respondents to consider the legal notice got issued on behalf of the applicants and to pass appropriate reasoned and speaking orders within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. RA No. 42/2018 filed against the said order in OA was dismissed on 15.03.2018. The present OA has been filed challenging the order dated 20.04.2018 which is stated to have been passed in purported compliance of order passed in OA No. 183/2018 (supra).
5. During pendency of the OA, MA No. 2240/2024 has been filed on behalf of the respondents seeking dismissal of the OA by contending that identical issue came up before Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 297/2015 and the Allahabad Bench has dismissed the said OA. It is further contended that by taking into consideration the order/judgment in OA No. 297/2015 (supra), Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal has also passed an order/judgment in OA No. 176/2016 dismissing the said OA. By referring to the assertions made in the MA and the judgments of the Tribunal in OA No. 297/2015 (supra) and OA No. 176/2016 (supra), learned counsel for the respondents has prayed for taking the said documents on record and dismissal of the captioned OA.
6. Undisputed facts are that the applicants who were recruited prior to 04.01.2011 were governed by ARC (Air Wing Staff) Recruitment Rules, 1977 which came into existence w.e.f. 06.03.1977. On account 8 Item No. 31 Court-2 OA No. 2726/2018 of Administrative exigency and for expanding the promotional avenues of the applicants in consequence to the Cadre review the new Directorate General of Security (Miscellaneous Cadre) Recruitment Rules 2010 were framed which were promulgated w.e.f. 04.01.2011.
As per the extant RRs, the JFAs having different trades including that of the Applicants are being governed accordingly and strength of this Cadre is 725. In view of the same the JFAs (ACA) who are not separate entity but they are part and parcel of the JFA Cadre. The designation is indicative only which has been kept as per Administrative convenience to take services of the incumbents smoothly in operational interest of the Security Organisation of the Respondents. In fact, in terms of the 6th CPC recommendation and implementation thereof, cadre of the JFA (Misc.) is known as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS). According to these RRs total 725 posts of JFA (Misc.) were kept. For promotional avenues of this Cadre 04 channels were opened and necessary provision to this effect is kept in the respective RRs. These promotional avenues are (i) JFA with the service of 03 years is eligible for competing in the LDCE for 10% of the post of LDC (ii) JFA with the service of 03 years is eligible for competing in the LDCE for 10% of the post of FA (iii) JFA with the service of 03 years is eligible for competing in the LDCE for 15% of the post of Steno. Promotional avenues kept by the Deptt. for the incumbent JFAs (ACA) are self-explanatory that the Deptt. has kept suitable provision of their growth in the above said 03 Cadres. In 9 Item No. 31 Court-2 OA No. 2726/2018 addition to the above said the Applicants are eligible for promotion in the hierarchy of LDC by virtue of their seniority which is 5% of the said Cadre. Apart from the above said, the provision of ACP till 5th Pay Commission and MACP since 6th Pay Commission is in force for the Applicants wherein they were and are entitled for financial benefits on attaining 12 years and 10 years of service respectively as per the scheme as aforesaid and being compensated appropriately.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that in terms of the Office Memorandum No. I-11011/16/2022-CRD dated 30.09.2022, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, particularly paragraph 4.4 thereof, the respondents are required to review every cadre once after every five years. He has further placed reliance on an order/judgment dated 23.11.2011 of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 2330/2010 titled Ms. Nidhi Kalra vs GNCTD & Ors. and also an order/judgment dated 09.11.1990 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in A.K. Bhatnagar & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.
reported in (1990) Supp. 2 SCR 638.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has emphasized that identically placed persons have agitated identical issue before the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 297/2015 and the Tribunal has dismissed the OA vide order/judgment dated 03.04.2024. Another set of identically placed persons, when they raised identical issue before Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal, a 10 Item No. 31 Court-2 OA No. 2726/2018 Co-ordinate Bench thereat has considered the order/judgment of the Tribunal in OA No. 297/2015 (supra) and has dismissed the OA vide order/judgment dated 25.04.2024. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the present OA is also devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.
9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
10. As apparent from the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 297/2015 (supra), the claim of the applicants was for a direction to the respondents to review the cadre of promotional avenue of the applicants in the cadre of SFA (MT) in the Grade pay of Rs. 2400/- and to pay difference of arrears etc. The applicants in the aforesaid OA were recruited during the year 1987-88 and later on in the cadre review some class-IV employees of the department were merged with their cadre of Air Craft Assistant (ACA) and such merger was prejudicial to their promotional prospect. The Tribunal vide a detailed order dismissed the OA. Further, identically placed persons have agitated identical issue before Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal vide OA No. 260/00176 of 2016 wherein the Tribunal has not only considered identical factual matrix of the case and identical grievances of the applicants therein but has also considered the order of the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 297/2015 (supra), paragraphs 8-13 of which read as under:
11 Item No. 31 Court-2 OA No. 2726/2018"8. From the record, we have come across that similar matter came up for consideration before the CAT, Allahabad Bench in OA No. 297/2015 (Khimananda & Ors Vs. UOI & Ors.), which has already been dismissed by the Tribunal on 03.04.2024. On examination of the said case vis a vis the case in hand, we find that the issues in both the matter are same and similar. Relevant portion of the order is quoted hereunder:
"4. The facts of the case of the applicants are that the applicants were appointed initially as Air Craft Assistant (ACA) matric in Group C by direct recruitment in the grade of Rs. 825 on 16.11.1987, 10.02.1988 and 11.07.1988. The grievance of the applicants are that they were matriculate and later on in cadre review some class-IV employees of the department were merged with their cadre of Air Craft Assistant (ACA), whereas they were appointed in Group C and merger of Group C & D was prejudicial to their promotional prospect. Further, grievances of the applicants are that some of the cadres were similarly placed like FA(G) and FA(MT) non matric and matric by cadre review were placed in the Grade of Rs. 2400/- with better promotional avenue which was discrimination against the applicants. And the applicants had been trying for their promotion for quite long time and finally gave their representations on 25.07.2014 for review of their cadre and providing them promotional avenue, and the department vide their impugned order dated 19.09.2014 in stead of improving their promotional avenue have down graded their Group C cadre by merging Group D cadre with them and make one cadre of JFA(ACA); in stead of giving them status equal to FA(MT) matric in Rs. 2400/- Grade. Aggrieved by the said order they have approached this Tribunal seeking the relief and hence their OA should be allowed and they should be granted all the reliefs claimed.
5. On notice, the respondents have filed their counter wherein they say that the applicants in the year 1987-1988 were appointed as Assistant in the then pay scale of Rs 825-15-900- EB-20-1200 (4th pay commission) and said post of Assistant was carrying the pay scale of Class-IV as per the recruitment rules dated 06.03.1977 and they vehemently denied the claim of the applicants that they were appointed initially as Assistant Matric in Group-C. As at that point of time, educational qualification for the post in question was middle school standard pass, although preferential qualification was matriculation which does not confer right to the applicants to claim service benefits at par with other cadres.12 Item No. 31 Court-2 OA No. 2726/2018
6. They further emphatically say that as per 5th CPC, the applicants have been given first Advanced Career Progression (ACP) in the pay scale of 3050-753950-80-4590 w.e.f. 16.11.1999,
11.07.2020 and 10.02.2000 respectively and after implementation of the 6th CPC they have been given the benefit of Modified Advanced Career Progression Scheme (MACP) in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2000/- (5200-20,200) in pay Band-1 w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and they emphatically say that this speaks by itself that the applicants have been compensated by way of ACP/MACP against their stagnation.
7. They further say that appointment to the post of JTO-II is by direct recruitment, and departmental candidates, if any, have to be judged along with outside candidates. The said orders, relied by the applicant pertains to training of ACA and that after successful completion of training, the candidates may apply for Direct Recruitment for the post of JTO-II. There was never, and there is no provision for promotion to the post of JTO-II from ACA. And they emphatically say that the order dated 11.01.1988 is just an internal policy guidelines which is subject to change, and it does not provide any right or benefit to the ACAs. The respondents further vehemently say that the cadre FA(MT)/FA (Driver) and JFA(ACA) are separate cadres with different type of duties and responsibilities thus cannot be compared by the applicants for parity and hence, the respondents do not agree with the contention of the applicant as such. They further vehemently contend that the applicants' contention that their grade was downgraded is absolutely incorrect as the erstwhile Group-D employees have been abolished and categorized as Group-C and their duties are distinct from the duties and recruitment rules of FA(MT). Hence, Air Craft Assistant cannot be compared with FA(MT)/FA(G) as claimed by the applicants so the respondents are justified in disposing of the representation of the applicants. And similarity in the applicants' educational qualification they being matriculate and other matriculate cadres which are distinct and having distinct cadre rules, so the applicant's argument that they should get parity is erroneous and cannot be accepted. Hence, there is no merit in the claims of the applicants and accordingly this OA should be dismissed.
XXX XXX XXX
16. Furthermore in a long catena of judgements the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled that Tribunal and High Court shall not entertain and interfere with the policy making domain of the executive wing of 13 Item No. 31 Court-2 OA No. 2726/2018 the Government. A double Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court on 14.12.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 14524 of 2015, Union of India and others vs. Air Commodore NK Sharma (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1673) held that a Tribunal subject to the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot be permitted by law, to direct the framing of a policy by the Government. In the said case, one of the issues for consideration was following: " Whether the Tribunal could have issued a direction to the Government to frame a policy for filling up the post of JAG(Air)?" Inter alia other things, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed following:-
"48. It is in consideration of this statutory scheme that we must look for an answer to the question as to whether the Tribunal could have directed the formation of a policy, albeit in regard to a matter affecting the service of armed forces personnel, to adjudicate which, it otherwise possesses the jurisdiction?
49. Making policy, as is well recognized, is not in the domain of the Judiciary. The Tribunal is also a quasi-judicial body, functioning within the parameters set out in the governing legislation. Although, it cannot be questioned that disputes in respect of promotions and/or filling up of vacancies is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, it cannot direct those responsible for making policy, to make a policy in a particular manner.
50. It has been observed time and again that a court cannot direct for a legislation or a policy to be made. Reference may be made to a recent judgment of this Court in Union of India v. K. Pushpavanam where while adjudicating a challenge to an Order passed by a High Court directing the State to decide the status of the Law Commission as a Statutory or Constitutional body and also to consider the introduction of a bill in respect of torts and State liability, observed as under:-
"..As far as the law of torts and liability thereunder of the State is concerned, the law regarding the liability of the State and individuals has been gradually evolved by Courts. Some aspects of it find place in statutes already in force. It is a debatable issue whether the law of torts and especially liabilities under the law of torts should be codified by a legislation. A writ court cannot direct the Government to consider introducing a particular bill before the House of Legislature within a time frame. Therefore, the first direction issued under the impugned judgment was unwarranted."14 Item No. 31 Court-2 OA No. 2726/2018
51. We may further refer to Union of India v. Ilmo Devi wherein the Court, while considering with the case concerning regularization/absorption of part-time sweepers at a post office in Chandigarh observed:-
"The High Court cannot, in exercise of the power under Article 226, issue a Mandamus to direct the Department to sanction and 17 create the posts. The High Court, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, also cannot direct the Government and/or the Department to formulate a particular regularization policу. Framing of any scheme is no function of the Court and is the sole prerogative of the Government. Even the creation and/or sanction of the posts is also the sole prerogative of the Government and the High Court, in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot issue Mandamus and/or direct to create and sanction the posts."
52. The above being the settled position of law, it only stands to reason that a Tribunal functioning within the strict boundaries of the governing legislation, would not have the power to direct the formation of a policy. After all, a court in Writ jurisdiction is often faced with situations that allegedly fly in the face of fundamental rights, and yet, has not been entrusted with the power to direct such formation of policy."
17. Considering all the above we are clear in our mind that no case is made out by the applicants to grant any relief and hence, we pass following orders:-
The present OA is dismissed. All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly. No costs."
9. This Tribunal is also reminded by the case of Jacob Puliyel Vs. UOI & Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 607 of 2021, where the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"It is well settled that the Courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fide will render the policy unconstitutional. It is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are the courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that а different 15 Item No. 31 Court-2 OA No. 2726/2018 policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. Courts do not and cannot act as appellate authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary."
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.U. Joshi & Ors. vs The Accountant General, Ahmedabad, AIR 2003 SC 2156, held as under:
"10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its view for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to 16 Item No. 31 Court-2 OA No. 2726/2018 amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service."
11. The policy decision for making all Group-D posts as MTS came up for judicial scrutiny before the CAT, Erakulam Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pankajakshan Nair Vs Union Of India (OA No. 180/01090/2014 disposed of on 21 March, 2016), and taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.U.Joshi (supra), the Tribunal held as under:
"12. As regards the issue in the present O.A is concerned, it is the fact that following the VI CPC recommendation, the erstwhile Group D posts have been re-designated as Group C posts and several scale of pay in the erstwhile Group 'D' category were merged together to a new Pay Band with Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/-. Consequent to the re-designation of Group 'D' category as Group C and also upgradation of pay scale, higher education qualification for the posts were also introduced before introducing the concept of multi-skilling of duties. In that overall context, the respondents vide their communication dated 27.12.2012 revised the charter of duties of erstwhile Group 'D' post wherein several existing cadres have been merged into one taking into account the task performed as well as the purpose for easy switching over from one to another. Accordingly, 7 trades which includes JGO were merged into a single head i.e. MultiTasking Staff. We do not find anything wrong in such an approach. Further, just because of the erstwhile post of Lascar and Gestetner Operator had merged into one namely MTS does not amount to or result in any demotion under the revised pay structure as the pay scale of the posts were merged to a single Pay Band of Rs. 5200-20200 with a Grade Pay at Rs.1800/-.
XXX XXX XXX
14. 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. 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 seven cadres into one cadre of MTS based on their assessment therefore cannot be faulted. Therefore, we hold the respondents are well within their right in reorganising the erstwhile 17 Item No. 31 Court-2 OA No. 2726/2018 cadre and merger into one and the order of 27 th December 2012 cannot bе held as unjustified.
15. Therefore, after due consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that there is no merit in this O.A and therefore it is liable to be dismissed. The Original Application is accordingly dismissed as above. No order as to costs.
12. 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. 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 therefore cannot be faulted with. Therefore, we hold 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.
13. Hence, going by the facts and law discussed above, we hold that there is 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."
11. We have also gone through the judgments of this Tribunal in the case of Ms. Nidhi Kalra (supra) referred and relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants. After recording the provisions of Recruitment Rules, the Tribunal observed in paragraphs 5-7 as under:
"5. In our opinion, there is no logic in having a separate method of recruitment for the post of TGT, Domestic Science, which is not in line with the normal RRs for other subjects. It is a fact that the Assistant Teachers (Primary) including the applicant do not have any promotional prospect in the entire career of their service life and there are no grounds why Assistant Teachers in Domestic Science as a class should be discriminated against and denied promotion which is legitimately available to the Assistant Teachers in other subjects.
6. Therefore, we find merit in this application. It is not possible for us to sustain the provisions relating to method 18 Item No. 31 Court-2 OA No. 2726/2018 of recruitment for the post of TGT, Domestic Science in the RRs as they are violative of Articles-14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the respondents did not offer any rational justification to treat the class of Assistant Teachers (Primary), Domestic Science separately from the other Assistant Teachers. Neither is there any justifiable object to be achieved by such classification.
7. We find that the respondents themselves have prescribed that all RRs should be reviewed once in five years. But surprisingly, this instance of invidious discrimination has never been pointed out so far, neither any exercise of such review has been made. We, therefore, direct the respondents to review the provisions of RRs providing the method of recruitment for the post of TGT, Domestic Science forthwith so as to bring them at par with TGTs of other subjects. It is further directed that the review shall be completed within three months and the respondent authority shall take consequent action pursuant to the decision in the review in shortest time feasible."
12. Thus, it is apparent that the Tribunal had come to the conclusion of invidious discrimination and despite that no review has been made by the respondents. However, in the present case, there is no such fact.
13. In the case of A.K. Bhatnagar (supra), the issue was with regard to the dispute of inter se seniority among direct recruits of Grade-IV of Central Information Service. In this connection, the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled in the conclusive paragraph of the judgment as under:
"On more than one occasion this Court has indicated to the Union and the State Governments that once they frame rules, their action in respect of matters covered by rules should be regulated by the rules. The rules framed in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are solemn rules having binding effect. Acting in a manner contrary to the rules does create problem and dislocation. Very often Government themselves get trapped on account of their own mistakes or actions in excess of what is provided in the rules. We take serious view of these lapses and hope and trust that the Government both at the Centre and in the States would take note of this position and refrain from acting in a manner not contemplated by their own rules. There shall be no order as to costs."19 Item No. 31 Court-2 OA No. 2726/2018
14. However, the facts in the present case are entirely different to those in the case of A.K. Bhatnagar (supra). Thus, we are of the considered view that the judgments referred and relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants are of no help to the applicants.
However, the facts and issue as raised by the applicants in the present OA are identical to those in OA No. 297/2015 (supra) dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Allahabad and OA No. 176/2016 (supra) dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Cuttack.
15. In the light of the aforesaid and for parity, the present OA deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
16. However in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(B. Anand) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/NS/