Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Manish Choudhary vs Indian Red Cross Society on 1 April, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 529/2024
Reserved on: 06.02.2025
Pronounced on: 01.04.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B.Anand, Member (A)
Manish Choudhary,
S/o Dr. Dk Choudhary,
Aged about 52 years,
R/o A-112, Sector-26
Noida, GB Nagar, UP-201301
Working as Deputy Secretary,
Indian Red Cross Society,
National Headquarters,
New Dehli-110001 - Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. S. Rajappa and Mr. Gowrishankar)
VERSUS
1. Indian Red Cross Society,
Through its Secretary General,
National Headquarters,
1, Red Cross Road,
Red Cross Building,
New Delhi-110001
2. The Joint Secretary,
Indian Red Cross Society,
National Headquarters,
1, Red Cross Road,
Red Cross Building,
New Delhi-110001 - Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. LR Khatana)
2
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. B.Anand, Member (A):
By way of the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following relief(s):-
"(a) Quash and set aside the Office Order dated 03-02-
2024 bearing No.559 on the file F.No.A-
11016/24/P&A/347 issued by the Respondent and pass an order directing the Respondent to re-instate the Applicant forthwith and:
(b) Pass such order or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and render justice."
2. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the applicant was working as Deputy Secretary in the respondents' organization, i.e. Indian Red Cross Society (IRCS). He is aggrieved by the impugned Office Order no. 559 dated 03.02.2024 passed by the respondents against him whereby the respondents have compulsorily retired the applicant by exercising the powers conferred upon them by Rule 56
(j) of the Fundamental Rules adopted by the IRCS National Headquarters.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant assails the aforesaid Office Order dated 03.02.2024 stating that the orders suffers from patent illegality due to the following reasons:
"(a) Indian Red Cross Society (hereinafter referred to as "IRCS" for short) is a statutory body under an act of the Parliament called the Indian Red Cross Society Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") and Rule 56 (J) of the FR have not been incorporated in the Act and the Rules made thereunder.3
(b) The impugned order suffers from mala fides; and
(c) That under the garb of adopting Rule 56(J) of FR the authorities in IRCS have exercised powers which are not vested in them by taking arbitrary and executive measures to compulsorily retire the Applicant."
4. In so far as Reason (a) is concerned, the Act under Section 5 provides for power to make rules among other matters for the following namely:
"(a) The conditions of membership of the Society;
(b) The appointment and term of office of Members of the Managing Body;
(c) The choice of representatives on international and other committees;
(d) A representation on the Managing Body of State Branch Committees and affiliated societies and bodies;
(e) The constitution of finance, medical and other committees and the delegation of powers to them;
(f) The powers exercisable by the Managing Body in supervising the activities of branch committees; and
(g) The regulation of the procedure generally of the Society and Managing Body."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that any power exercised by the Managing Body of IRCS in so far as it relates to framing of rules or adoption thereof is subject to approval of the President of India who under Section 4 (A) of the Act shall be the President of the Society namely IRCS.
6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that Section 5 of the IRCS Act, mandates that if the Managing Body intends to make rules for the management, functions, control and procedure of the Society, the same shall be done with the approval of the President of India. He also adds for good measure that Section 5 4 (2) of the Act, provides for a situation wherein if the rule is made with the approval of the President, the same shall be laid before each house of the Parliament in the manner provided under sub-section (16) of Section 5 of the Act and the subject rules will be notified in the official Gazette. In other words, if the procedure as laid down in the provisions of the Act/Rules are not followed then any decision taken by the Managing Body is null and void.
7. He submits that under the rules made under Section 5 of the said Act, Rule 5 provides for the powers of the Managing Body and in sub-rule 16 of Rule 5, it is provided that the Managing Body shall have the power to make standing orders for regulating its own procedure for regulating the procedure of the committees appointed by it and duties of the officers of the Society.
8. He submits that it is not provided anywhere under Rule 5 of IRCS Rules, to take executive decisions to adopt rules of the Government of India and to implement the same against the interest of an employee of IRCS.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his arguments as stated earlier, is relying upon the case of Manoj Ambaram Kahar Vs. Red Cross Society & Ors., 2016SCC OnLine Guj 7916, wherein it was held that "any appointment made under the rules of IRCS for the purpose of appointment or removal of an employee, the same would be in the nature of contract, terms of contract between the Society and its employees and, therefore, the Society cannot be characterised as 'State' and that writ cannot be issued but the Court 5 could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if the violation of statutory public duty is established".
10. Learned counsel for the applicant also relies upon the case of Dr. Suresh Malik v. Indian Red Cross Society, reported in 2011 SCC Online CAT 4254, wherein a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal after noting the pleadings of IRCS among others, has noted in Para 3 of the judgment to the effect that IRCS is not guided by the Central Government Rules/Instructions, and the same would not ipso facto applies to the employees of the Society.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant is also drawing our attention to paras 6 and 8 of the aforementioned judgment in the case of Dr. Suresh Malik (supra) by reading extensively the paras, which read as under:-
"6. On merits of the controversy, however, we are of the view that the applicant has no case. It is admitted position that there are no service rules dealing with any of the service matters, and the decisions as regards the same, including fixation of pay scales, are taken by the managing body of the Society. The main plea of the applicant is that by decisions taken by the respondent Society from time to time, it has been decided that service rules as regards pay scales as may be applicable to Central Government employees shall mutatis mutandis apply to the employees of the Society. This plea of the applicant canvassed through his counsel is not borne out from the various documents relied upon by him on that behalf. The applicant has indeed placed on records a copy of the rules called the Indian Red Cross Society Rules, 1991. The same do not contain any provision as regards pay scales admissible to employees working with the Society. The managing body is empowered to frame rules and regulations, which, in terms of Section 5(1)(i) of the Act of 1920, may provide for conditions of service of the officers of the Society. In exercise of powers conferred upon the Society under Section 5 of the said Act, rules have been framed, but admittedly, the same do not provide for matters relating to promotion and other service conditions. It is 6 also true that the Society deals with such matters by decisions taken by it through its managing body, for which meetings are held from time to time. The applicant is stated to have obtained information under the Right to Information Act, vide which, it is the case of the applicant that a decision was taken that wherever the rules are silent, the same rules as may be applicable to Central Government employees shall be applied. The information obtained by the applicant has been placed on records as Annexure P-3, relevant para 5 on which reliance has been placed, reads as follows:
"The rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by the Society or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions."
As per IRCS Act, Rules and Standing Orders, Indian Red Cross Society is having its own rules framed by the Managing Body and the decision taken by the Managing Body from time to time. Wherever the rules are silent, guidance is taken from the Central Government rules.The applicant has also placed reliance upon the decision taken by the respondent Society dated 30.7.1099, which reads as follows:
"The Managing Body in its meeting held on July 28, 1999 accepted with approval the minutes of the Finance Committee meeting held on November 7, 1997. The Managing Body also approved that the pay and allowances of the staff of IRCS on National Headquartersrolls may be revised as per the recommendations of the Vth Central Pay Commission."
In view of this decision of the Managing Body, Salary Section in the IRCS may draw and disburse the August 1999 salary as per the revised scales of pay and allowances payable thereon.
Approval is solicited please. Reliance has also been placed on recommendations made by the sub committee constituted by the finance committee of the respondent Society to consider the staff related matters, meeting of which was held on 12.6.2001. Relevant part of the recommendation relied upon would read, thus:
"The committee further observed that IRCS is guided by the GOI pay scales for all its staff and as such the pay scale in IRCS could only be compared with GOI pay scale for the respective posts AIIMS being a separate institution, the same cannot be considered for the purpose of anomaly/disparity. The disparity observed in the case of Lab technician needs to be considered for rectification. The committee recommends that the scale of Lab 7 technician be revised to the equivalent scale of 4500-125-7000 from the present pay scale of 4000-100-5000 effectively from the date of decision.
8. Para 5 of the information that has been received by the applicant under RTI Act would not support the cause of the applicant at all. Indeed, the rules as regards applicable pay scales and extension of schemes that may enhance the pay scales of the employees are not mentioned in the rules framed by the respondent Society. The same are thus silent. However, it is not that wherever such rules are not in existence, the one that are applicable as regards the Central Government employees would mutatis mutandis apply to the employees of the respondent Society. It is only that guidance is to be taken from the Central Government rules. The applicant has been extended the pay scale recommended by the 5th Central Pay Commission, as that was thought proper by the respondent Society, but it has not been thought proper and expedient by the Society to extend the benefit of DACP Scheme, as in that regard the matter came before the managing body, and such claim of the applicant was specifically rejected vide order dated 21.4.2008. Insofar as, order dated 30.7.1999 is concerned, the managing body of the Society has approved that the pay and allowances of the staff of the Society on National Headquarters rolls may be revised as per the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission. If the recommendations of the Pay Commission have been accepted by the respondent Society, it would not automatically mean that all recommendations of the Commission, like DACP Scheme, shall also be automatically extended to the employees of the respondent Society. The recommendation of the sub committee is also as regards pay scales and not with regard to various schemes that may be applicable to Central Government employees. It appears to us that the respondent Society has not extended the benefit of DACP Scheme to the applicant for the primary reason that the duties carried out by the applicant are entirely different than the one carried out by the medical officers of Central Government. It has been pleaded that the applicant is engaged in the duties only as may be attached to the blood bank. It is explained to us during the course of arguments that the only job of the applicant is to collect, test, deposit and release the blood samples. The medical officers in general duties are engaged in patient care, which are different and far more arduous. If the respondent Society based upon the set of duties carried out by the applicant and the medical officers of Central Health Services has not extended the benefit of DACP Scheme to the applicant, no exception can be had to the same. We may refer to 8 the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Suryanarayan Sahu & others v Council of Scientific & Industrial Research [(1998) 2 SCC 162]. The facts of the case aforesaid reveal that the applicant/appellant Sahu was working as Senior Draftsman in the Regional Laboratory, Bhubaneswar, a unit of CSIR. He filed an OA in the Tribunal seeking pay scale broadly on the pattern of 3rd Central Pay Commission report. He asked for a particular scale, and which, when was not granted by the Tribunal, he filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging its order. CSIR is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Rules and regulations and bye-laws govern the functioning of CSIR. Its affairs are to be administered, directed and controlled, subject to rules and regulations and bye-laws and orders of the Society, by the Governing Body. Under bye-law 12, conditions of service of officers and staff of CSIR are governed by the CCS (CCA) Rules and CCS (Conduct) Rules for the time being in force. Under bye- law 14, the scales of pay applicable to all the employees of the Society shall not be in excess of those prescribed by the Government of India for similar personnel, save in the case of specialists. Under bye-law 15, in regard to all matters concerning service conditions of employees of the Society, the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules framed and such other rules and orders issued by the Government of India from time to time shall apply to the extent applicable to the employees of the Society. The applicant who was a matriculate and possessed diploma of draughtsman was initially appointed as a tracer in the Regional Research Laboratory, Bhubaneswar in the pay scale of Rs.110-200. He was promoted to the post of junior draughtsman in the scale of Rs.115-240, and further to the post of senior draughtsman in the pay scale of Rs.380-640. Recommendations of the 3rd Central Pay Commission were accepted by the Central government w.e.f. 1.1.1973. One of the recommendations of the Pay Commission related to the scale of pay of draughtsman and senior draughtsman. Whereas, draughtsmen were to be in the pay scale of Rs.330-560, senior draughtsmen were divided into two groups with two scales of pay of Rs.330-560 and Rs.425-700. Fifty per cent of the senior draughtsmen who were high up in the seniority were given the scale of Rs.425-700 and the remaining 50% were placed in the lower scale of pay. This division of senior draughtsmen was challenged before the Supreme Court, and a plea was raised that draughtsmen, both junior and senior, discharged identical duties and performed similar work and that, that being so, there was little or no justification in putting 50% of them in a hi gher scale of pay and 50% others in a lower scale. This plea was accepted. A direction was issued to the Government to fix the pay scale of junior draughtsmen also at Rs.425-700.9
Thereafter, the Government by way of notification dated11.9.1985 decided that the draughtsmen who were in the pay scale of Rs.205-280 prior to 1.1.1973 and were placed in the scale of Rs.330-560 based on the recommendations of the 3rd Pay Commission, might be given the scale of Rs.425-700 notionally from 1.1.1973. Even though, the rules made by the respondent Society were such as mentioned above, it was still held that the recommendation of the Pay Commission could not be made applicable to CSIR suo moto and it would be up to the governing body of CSIR to adopt the recommendations of such Pay Commission. CSIR by resolution had been adopting the recommendations of the Pay Commission for formulating the pay scales of different categories of its employees but the recommendations, it was stated, were not adopted in toto and that the CSIR adopted a broad pattern of Government of India scales as recommended by the 3rd Pay Commission. It was held that the draughtsmen of CSIR could not claim equality with those of CPWD. It was further held that CSIR was not bound to follow all the recommendations of the Pay Commission, which, as per its bye-laws, stated that conditions of services of its officers and staff shall be governed by CCS (CCA) Rules and CCS (Conduct) Rules for the time being in force. Surely, all recommendations of the Pay Commission shall not be binding upon the respondent Society as well."
12. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that in order for IRCS to adopt certain rules and render it as a valid adoption, the law provides that any adoption of rule should have the following ingredients formed in the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of K.C. Malik vs. Union of India and Others, 2007 SCC OnLine 2636, wherein the Tribunal has dealt with an identical and similar issue as has been raised by the applicant in this matter. More specifically, learned counsel for the applicant draws our attention to paras 17 to 41 of the aforementioned judgment, which lays down the law on how an adoption of a rule becomes valid in law and that any routine adoption of the generality of the Central Government Rules would not become and cannot be acted upon and 10 implemented against an employee. In this judgment all aspects have been considered.
13. In so far as Reason (b) adverted to in para 3 is concerned, there is a mala fide on the part of IRCS in as much as the Respondent authorities have bias and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Applicant as the Applicant has been denied promotion to the post of Joint Secretary by forcing the Applicant to file O.A. No. 1170 of 2023 and O.A. No. 341 of 2023. So far as O.A. No. 1170 of 2023 is concerned the Respondents are circumventing the judgment and order dated 17-05-2023 and in so far as O.A. No. 341 of 2023 is concerned the Respondent charge-sheeted the Applicant and since the Respondent found that their action will be quashed by this Hon'ble Tribunal they did not participate in the proceedings as the Applicant had informed this Tribunal that the Applicant has been compulsorily retired under Rule 56(J) and thus the O.A. No. 341 of 2023 has become infructuous.
14. In so far as Reason (c) adverted to in para 3 is concerned in an M.A. No. 1764 of 2023 in O.A. No. 341 of 2023 filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal at Para 3 of Page 27 thereof, the Respondent has clearly mentioned that Government Rules are not followed ipso-facto.
15. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the Secretary General of IRCS has stated in his communication dated 24-12-2020 to all the Chairman/General Secretary etc. of all States that procedure for making rules provisions of Section 5(1) of the Act have to be followed. The Gazette Notification dated 15-12-2017 which 11 notifies the rules for the State after following the procedure laid down under Section 5 of the Act.
16. In view of the foregoing, he submits that the Respondents have passed the impugned order without there being the FR 56 (j) being part of the rules framed under the Act and that the so-called adoption of the said Rule by the Managing Body pursuant to which the impugned order has been passed is null and void. In a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of In Re:
Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures (WP (Civil) 295 of 2022) pronounced on 13-11-2024 has held executive cannot take action in violation of due procedure that infringes upon the fundamental right of individuals and assuming power that does not vest in them.
17. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the judgements that are relied upon by the Respondent are distinguishable on facts as well as on law and that the Respondents have indulged in trying to mislead this Tribunal by taking stand that is not consistent with the law.
18. Mr. L.R. Khatana, learned counsel for the respondents mounts a vehement challenge against the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. He states that the premise of the applicant that the impugned order dated 03.02.2024 is bad in law because the adoption of said rule 56 (j) has not been validly done under the IRCS Act and rules framed thereunder is wrong. He adds that the plea of the learned counsel for the applicant that 'the adoption of rule 56 (j) could have been done only by following the 12 process/procedure of Section 5 of IRCS Act, 1920, which is the enabling provision conferring rule making power on the Managing Body of the IRCS and taking the approval of the President of India, who is also the President of the IRCS and thereafter by placing the same before both the Houses of Parliament is blatantly unfounded.
19. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the IRCS has been constituted as a Society by the Indian Red Cross Society Act, 1920 and the Legislature, in its wisdom, has clearly delineated the areas wherein action can be taken by the Managing Body of the Society by framing the rules under Section 5. He invites our attention, in particular, to Sections 4B(1)(c); 4C(2) and 4D(3) of the IRCS Act. Section 4C(2) clearly lays down that the term of office and conditions of service of the Secretary General and the Treasurer shall be such as the Managing Body may determine by Rules made under Section 5. It is important to notice that there is no such stipulation in the Act with regard to the service conditions of other officers/employees of the IRCS, which establishes, beyond any iota of doubt, that the Legislature did not intend, much less stipulate, that the conditions of service of other employees of the IRCS, apart from the Secretary General and the Treasurer, have to be laid down in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Act or rules made thereunder. Hence the plea taken by the applicant is without merit and cannot be countenanced in law.
20. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that Section 5 of the IRCS Act is merely of enabling nature wherein the expression "may" has been used and therefore, it is not mandatory to 13 make rules thereunder. He invites our attention to paras 12, 13, 15 to 18 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the matter of V.T. Khanzode and Others vs. Reserve Bank of India & Anr., reported in (1982) 2 SCC 7, wherein, on a similar question of law, it has, inter alia, been held that ".... This provision does not justify the argument that staff regulations must be framed under it or not at all. The substance of the matter is that the Central Board has the power to frame regulations relating to the conditions of service of the Bank's staff. If it has that power, it may exercise it either in accordance with Section 58(1) or by acting appropriately in the exercise of its general power of administration and superintendence.". To the same effect is the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nagpur Improvement Trust vs. Yadaoro Jagannath Kumbhare & Ors.. reported in (1999) 8 SCC 99, in para 8 whereof it has, inter alia, been held that ".....in the absence of any statutory rules governing the service conditions of the employees, the executive instructions and/or decisions taken administratively would operate in the field....".
21. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala had the occasion to survey the various provisions of the IRCS Act in the matter of Sunil C. Kurien & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors., reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 21542, wherein in paragraph 9, with reference to the Managing Body of IRCS, it has, inter alia, been held that Society shall be managed by a body consisting of its Chairman nominated by the President and twelve members elected by State Branches. This clearly means that the Managing Body has the power of administration, management and 14 control of the IRCS. Further in paragraph 12, it has, inter alia, been held that "...Be that as it may, the fact that power is conferred by the statute on the Managing Body of the Society to frame rules concerning the powers exercisable by the Managing Body in supervising the activities of the State Branch committees is sufficient to hold that the State Branch committees of the Society are under the control and supervision of the Managing Body......".
22. It is thus clear that Managing Body of the Society has the power of management, administration, and control of the IRCS and therefore, competent to take administrative decisions on all matters including service conditions of the employees.
23. Learned counsel for the respondents states that there is a long- standing past practice of adopting the Government rules in the IRCS as the Managing Body adopted CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 in its meeting held on 19.01.1980 and the same are being implemented ever since and action has been taken under the said Rules against a number of officers including a former Joint Secretary. Similarly, the FR 56(j) has been adopted by the Managing Body in the same manner in its meeting held on 29.11.2021 and the cases of a number of officers have been reviewed and action taken on the basis of the recommendations of the Review Committee. In this regard, he invites our attention to paragraph 24 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Jagathy Raj V.P. vs. Dr. Rajitha Kumar S. and Ors. reported in (2022) 6SCC
299. The applicant being a former senior officer of IRCS dealing with Personnel and Administration is fully aware of the above rule 15 position and therefore, is estopped from challenging the same when it comes to his own case.
24. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is important to point out that the applicant himself in his capacity as Deputy Secretary, IRCS, had admitted in a counter reply (Para 4.1) filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No.30/2015 in the matter of Nafe Singh vs. IRCS & Anr., that "... The Managing Body is the supreme authority and for all practical purposes, it is having complete control over the administrative and financial affairs of the Society. The service conditions as approved by its Managing Body are applicable in the IRCS. However, wherever the IRCS rules are silent guidance is taken from the Central Government rules.".
25. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that based on the decision of its Managing Body, the IRCS has been administratively adopting/applying the provisions of various government rules, including the successive Pay Commission Recommendations, ACP/MACP Schemes, Dearness Allowance, Leave Rules, Leave Travel Concession Rules, Children Education Allowance etc., of which the applicant himself has been a beneficiary and but when the action under a particular rule [FR 56(j)] adopted by the Managing Body is not to his liking, he is estopped from challenging the same. It is relevant to mention that in the case of Dr. Suresh Malik Vs. IRCS (2011 SCC OnLine CAT 4254 decided by this Hon'be Tribunal in Paragraph 6, it has been, inter alia, held that "..... The Managing Body is empowered to frame rules and regulations, which, in terms of Section 5(1)(i) of the Act of 1920, may provide for conditions of 16 service of the officers of the Society. In exercise of powers conferred upon the Society under Section 5 of the said Act, rules have been framed, but admittedly, the same do not provide for matters relating to promotion and other service conditions. It is also true that the society deals with such matters by decisions taken by it through it managing body, for which meetings are held from time to time....".
26. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that it is relevant to mention that the Managing Body of the IRCS adopted the FR 56 (j) in pursuance of the DOPT, Government of India O.Ms. dated 11th March, 2016 and 28th August, 2020 issued with the avowed objective of strengthening of administration with particular focus on Autonomous Institutions and similarly situated organisations like the AIIMS, under the same Ministry as the IRCS and the CSIR etc:, had also adopted the same. Therefore, the adoption of the rule was as a part of the wider exercise stipulated by the Government of India and no mala fides can be alleged or attributed to the respondents.
27. Learned counsel for the respondents concludes his arguments by stating that the applicant alleges malafides but without pleading the particulars thereof and without impleading the persons against whom they are alleged. Further the applicant is referring to a Miscellaneous Application filed by him in O.A. No.341/2023. Since the said OA No.341/2023 has been dismissed by this Hon'ble Tribunal as infructuous the said M.A. has also died it own death and is of no avail to the applicant. However, the applicant is in the habit of making wild and reckless allegations in regard to malafides. He invites the attention of the Bench to the detailed Report of a senior 17 officer of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (administrative Ministry) on complaints alleging irregularities in the functioning of IRCS which investigated the allegations of the applicant herein and he was also given an opportunity of personal hearing, wherein no substance have been found in the complaints.. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Purushottam Kumar Jha vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2006) 9 SCC 458.
28. Learned counsel for the applicant, while relying on the submissions made by him in the rejoinder, draws our attention to an affidavit filed by one Shri N.K. Singh, currently Deputy Secretary in IRCS and states that that affidavit is misleading this Tribunal as the said NK Singh, while issuing an office order No.558 of 110 dated 11.01.2024 issued in compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal on 09.07.2015 in OA No. 2520/2015 filed by one Arun Juriel, regarding the grant of pay to the post of Assistant, has stated therein as follows:-
"That Indian Red Cross Society (hereinafter referred to as "IRCS") is a humanitarian organization constituted under Act of the Parliament (ACT XV of 1920) and is a part of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and is classified as a 'National Society" under the Movement. That each National Society under the International Red Cross System must Non-interference of the local government and independence are basic guiding tenets of the Society. Although IRCS has been constituted under the Central Act but it has its independent identity and it is not controlled by the Central Government or any of the States of the Union. The independent and autonomous character of the Indian Red Cross Society is in line with the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. There is no pervasive control of the Government in the affairs of the Indian Red Cross Society. The Managing Body is for all practical purposes having complete control over the financial and administrative matters of the Society.18
The IRCS has its own rules and in the areas not covered by its rules, guidance is taken from the government rules and instructions. But IRCS is an independent body having a special character of its own as per the Act, under which it has been created. The Government orders or even pay commission recommendations are not, per se, applicable to it.
The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India has declared in an affidavit filed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.18396/2007 before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana that it has absolutely no control over the IRCS. The post of Assistant is not filled by direct recruitment in IRCS. The pay of the applicants were fixed on promotion by applying the relevant rules, instructions and there is no infirmity of illegality therein."
29. We have given a patient hearing to counsels on both sides and with their assistance, have carefully gone through the pleadings on record.
30. The basic issue to be adjudicated upon here is whether FR 56(j), which is part of the Central Civil Services (Pension)Rules, can be adopted by the Managing Body of the IRCS without getting the approval of the President of India of Red Cross Society and thereafter laying it on both Houses of Parliament and then finally publishing it in the Gazette Notification. To examine this, we need to appreciate the genesis of the IRCS. The International Red Cross Movement of which IRCS is a part, was founded as a humanitarian organization in the 1860s by one Jean Henry Dunant in Switzerland in the aftermath of the Austro-Sardinian war when so many dead bodies were lying unattended on both sides and so many wounded soldiers were left un-cared for after the Austro-Sardinian war. The First World War (1914-1918) again highlighted the problem of un-claimed dead bodies lying without performance of last rites and unattended to wounded soldiers was causing concern to the members of the public. In this 19 background, the IRCS was formed under the statute called, Indian Red Cross Society Act, 1920. A careful perusal of the Act reveals that the framers of the Act in the Parliament were more concerned with the humanitarian and other social service activities of the Red Cross Society, particularly establishment and maintenance of blood bank, provision of relief for the wounded and those afflicted by disaster etc. and the framers of the Act have only mentioned the Chairman, Secretary General and the Treasurer in the IRCS Act and have not cared to go into the service conditions of the lower minions of the bureaucracy. In fact, in the judgment alluded to by the applicant's counsel in the matter of Dr. Suresh Mallik vs. IRCS, 2011 SCC Online CAT 4254, the following para which we are quoting verbatim below shows the thinking of the author of that judgment and that thought resonates with us also:-
"6. On merits of the controversy, however, we are of the view that the applicant has no case. It is admitted position that there are no service rules dealing with any of the service matters, and the decisions as regards the same, including fixation of pay scales, are taken by the managing body of the Society. The main plea of the applicant is that by decisions taken by the respondent Society from time to time, it has been decided that service rules as regards pay scales as may be applicable to Central Government employees shall mutatis mutandis apply to the employees of the Society. This plea of the applicant canvassed through his counsel is not borne out from the various documents relied upon by him on that behalf. The applicant has indeed placed on records a copy of the rules called the Indian Red Cross Society Rules, 1991. The same do not contain any provision as regards pay scales admissible to employees working with the Society. The managing body is empowered to frame rules and regulations, which, in terms of Section 5(1)(i) of the Act of 1920, may provide for conditions of service of the officers of the Society. In exercise of powers conferred upon the Society under Section 5 of the said Act, rules have been framed, but admittedly, the same do not provide for matters 20 relating to promotion and other service conditions. It is also true that the Society deals with such matters by decisions taken by it through its managing body, for which meetings are held from time to time. The applicant is stated to have obtained information under the Right to Information Act, vide which, it is the case of the applicant that a decision was taken that wherever the rules are silent, the same rules as may be applicable to Central Government employees shall be applied. The information obtained by the applicant has been placed on records as Annexure P-3, relevant para 5 on which reliance has been placed, reads as follows:
"The rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by the Society or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions.
As per IRCS Act, Rules and Standing Orders, Indian Red Cross Society is having its own rules framed by the Managing Body and the decision taken by the Managing Body from time to time. Wherever the rules are silent, guidance is taken from the Central Government rules."
The above para clearly shows that the IRCS Act 1920 is generally silent about service matters of its staff members. We also share the same view and are of the view that this is rightly so, because this being an autonomous organization is not exactly under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India and are not obligated to follow all rules of Government of India. However, the IRCS Managing Body can, as they have done in the past, adopt Government of India rules whenever needed by having a special meeting of the Managing Body. This is adduced to by the applicant himself in his affidavit filed on behalf the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, wherein the Ministry had taken the following stand:-
"It is denied that the Indian Red Cross Society (hereinafter referred to as the "IRCS") is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. The IRCS is a humanitarian organization constituted under the Indian Red Cross Society Act, 1920 and is a part of the International Red 21 Cross and Red Crescent Movement and is classified as a 'National Society' under the Movement. Each National Society under the International Red Cross Society must maintain its autonomous status. This practice is followed all over the world so as to enable the concerned National Society to function in conformity with fundamental principles of the International Movement, which revolves around the neutrality concept. Non- interference of the local government and independence are basic guiding tenets of the IRCS. There is no pervasive control by the Government of India over the affairs of the IRCS. The Managing Body is the supreme authority and for all practical purposes, the same is having complete control over the administrative and financial affairs of the Society. The service conditions as approved by its Managing Body are applicable in the IRCS. However, wherever the IRCS rules are silent, guidance is taken from the Central Government rules."
So it is very clear that the IRCS is an autonomous body albeit statutory body and it is having all its autonomy to conduct its affairs through members of the Managing Body. It is indeed true that the Managing Body initially had its own standing orders formulated in the year 1950 but however, the same was superseded by the formulation of the IRCS Rules 1992 and IRCS Rules 1994. For the formulation of the above two mentioned rules, the IRCS had to obtain the approval of the President of India and thereafter lay before both Houses of Parliament and notified in the Gazette. Perusal of these two rules as also the rules in 2017 which have been adduced to by the applicant, reveals that they concern to establishment and functioning of the said units of the Red Cross Society and the various activities to be performed by the same connected with blood donation, the provision of first aid, disaster relief etc. and not the service conditions.
31. The arguments adduced by the applicant's counsel by referring to an office order No.558 of 110 dated 11.01.2024 issued in compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal on 09.07.2015 in OA 22 No. 2520/2015 by one Mr. N.K. Singh, is a double edged sword as it can cut both the ways and that argument, which is adverted to in Para 28 of this order, will also be supporting the case of the respondents that the Managing Body is all in all in running the day- to-day affairs of the Society.
32. We find that on earlier occasions, the IRCS has adopted the provisions of CCS(CCA) Rules by the Minutes of the Meeting conducted by the Managing Body on 19.01.1980. One Mr. Satish Gupta, who was the then Joint Secretary was also imposed with a penalty of compulsory retirement under CCS(CCA) Rules. When it was challenged by the said Dr. Satish Gupta, the orders of compulsory retirement were upheld by the CAT in TA No. 851/2009 dated 05.09.2010.
33. It is also seen that although the IRCS is not directly under the control of the Union Ministry for Health and Family Welfare, on many matters, they have been taking guidance from the various instructions issued from time to time by the above Ministry voluntarily. It is not compulsory for the IRCS to adopt all the rules of the Central Government mutatis mutandis. However, in order to run day to day administration and deal with the service matters of its employees, the IRCS, which is lacking expertise in such matters as they are more concerned about the running of blood bank, blood donation, disaster relief etc., have been adopting these CCS(CCA)Rules and other Government of India's relevant rules from time to time.
23
34. We have to keep in our mind that the applicant before us was a part of the Personnel and Administration of the IRCS when all those decisions were taken by the IRCS. Indeed, he was initially appointed as an Information Officer and subsequently appointed as Deputy Secretary and at one time was also given additional charge of the post of Joint Secretary. Now that he himself is in the firing line, he cannot now turnaround and say that all those rules, which he was a party to and he had implemented as evidenced by the affidavit that he has submitted before the Tribunal on this kind of cases such as in the matters of Nafe Singh v. Indian Red Cross Society (IRCS) & Anr. (OA No. 30/2015) and Arun Juriel & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (OA No.2520/2015).
35. We also see from the records that the applicant, when he was working as a Deputy Secretary, has issued a memorandum dated 23.07.2019 wherein he states that "The recommendations of 6th Central Pay Commission were implemented after these were adopted by the Managing Body of the IRCS, NHQ for the employees of the IRCS, NHQ w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The 6th Pay Commission recommended Modified Assured Career Scheme (MACP) instead of ACP. According to this Scheme, the employees of IRCS, NHQ were eligible for three up- gradation in their service career, 1st at the completion of 10 years of regular service, 2nd at 20 years of regular service and the 3rd at the completion of 30 years of regular service in case they did not get any promotion during the intervening periods. Therefore, he has been a party to all the decisions of IRCS, Managing Body which have been beneficial to him and others in IRCS and now he is turning around 24 only because he has been declared as deadwood and compulsorily retired under FR56(j).
36. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment pertaining to one Dr. Suresh Mallik, Medical Officer, IRCS passed by a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal on 27.04.2011. However, on a careful reading of that judgment, we see that the facts in the case are totally different wherein the said Dr. Suresh Mallik, was seeking a direction to be issued to the IRCS to implement a scheme known as Dynamic Career Progression Scheme on the same lines as of in the Central Government. The Tribunal in Para 8 of the said judgment stated as follows:-
"8. Para 5 of the information that has been received by the applicant under RTI Act would not support the cause of the applicant at all. Indeed, the rules as regards applicable pay scales and extension of schemes that may enhance the pay scales of the employees are not mentioned in the rules framed by the respondent Society. The same are thus silent. However, it is not that wherever such rules are not in existence, the one that are applicable as regards the Central Government employees would mutatis mutandis apply to the employees of the respondent Society. It is only that guidance is to be taken from the Central Government rules. The applicant has been extended the pay scale recommended by the 5th Central Pay Commission, as that was thought proper by the respondent Society, but it has not been thought proper and expedient by the Society to extend the benefit of DACP Scheme, as in that regard the matter came before the managing body, and such claim of the applicant was specifically rejected vide order dated 21.4.2008. Insofar as, order dated 30.7.1999 is concerned, the managing body of the Society has approved that the pay and allowances of the staff of the Society on National Headquarters rolls may be revised as per the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission. If the recommendations of the Pay Commission have been accepted by the respondent Society, it would not automatically mean that all recommendations of the Commission, like DACP Scheme, shall also be automatically extended to the employees of the respondent Society. The recommendation of the sub committee is also as regards pay scales and not with regard to various schemes that may be applicable to Central Government employees. It appears to us that the respondent Society has not extended the benefit of 25 DACP Scheme to the applicant for the primary reason that the duties carried out by the applicant are entirely different than the one carried out by the medical officers of Central Government. It has been pleaded that the applicant is engaged in the duties only as may be attached to the blood bank. It is explained to us during the course of arguments that the only job of the applicant is to collect, test, deposit and release the blood samples. The medical officers in general duties are engaged in patient care, which are different and far more arduous. If the respondent Society based upon the set of duties carried out by the applicant and the medical officers of Central Health Services has not extended the benefit of DACP Scheme to the applicant, no exception can be had to the same. We may refer to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Suryanarayan Sahu & others v Council of Scientific & Industrial Research [(1998) 2 SCC 162]. The facts of the case aforesaid reveal that the applicant/appellant Sahu was working as Senior Draftsman in the Regional Laboratory, Bhubaneswar, a unit of CSIR. He filed an OA in the Tribunal seeking pay scale broadly on the pattern of 3rd Central Pay Commission report. He asked for a particular scale, and which, when was not granted by the Tribunal, he filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging its order. CSIR is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Rules and regulations and bye-laws govern the functioning of CSIR. Its affairs are to be administered, directed and controlled, subject to rules and regulations and bye-laws and orders of the Society, by the Governing Body. Under bye-law 12, conditions of service of officers and staff of CSIR are governed by the CCS (CCA) Rules and CCS (Conduct) Rules for the time being in force. Under bye-law 14, the scales of pay applicable to all the employees of the Society shall not be in excess of those prescribed by the Government of India for similar personnel, save in the case of specialists. Under bye-law 15, in regard to all matters concerning service conditions of employees of the Society, the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules framed and such other rules and orders issued by the Government of India from time to time shall apply to the extent applicable to the employees of the Society. The applicant who was a matriculate and possessed diploma of draughtsman was initially appointed as a tracer in the Regional Research Laboratory, Bhubaneswar in the pay scale of Rs.110-200. He was promoted to the post of junior draughtsman in the scale of Rs.115-240, and further to the post of senior draughtsman in the pay scale of Rs.380-640. Recommendations of the 3rd Central Pay Commission were accepted by the Central government w.e.f. 1.1.1973. One of the recommendations of the Pay Commission related to the scale of pay of draughtsman and senior draughtsman. Whereas, draughtsmen were to be in the pay scale of Rs.330-560, senior draughtsmen were divided into two groups with two scales of pay of Rs.330-560 and Rs.425-700. Fifty per cent of the senior draughtsmen who were high up in the seniority were given the scale of Rs.425-700 and the remaining 50% were placed in the lower scale of pay. This 26 division of senior draughtsmen was challenged before the Supreme Court, and a plea was raised that draughtsmen, both junior and senior, discharged identical duties and performed similar work and that, that being so, there was little or no justification in putting 50% of them in a hi gher scale of pay and 50% others in a lower scale. This plea was accepted. A direction was issued to the Government to fix the pay scale of junior draughtsmen also at Rs.425-700. Thereafter, the Government by way of notification dated11.9.1985 decided that the draughtsmen who were in the pay scale of Rs.205-280 prior to 1.1.1973 and were placed in the scale of Rs.330-560 based on the recommendations of the 3rd Pay Commission, might be given the scale of Rs.425-700 notionally from 1.1.1973. Even though, the rules made by the respondent Society were such as mentioned above, it was still held that the recommendation of the Pay Commission could not be made applicable to CSIR suo moto and it would be up to the governing body of CSIR to adopt the recommendations of such Pay Commission. CSIR by resolution had been adopting the recommendations of the Pay Commission for formulating the pay scales of different categories of its employees but the recommendations, it was stated, were not adopted in toto and that the CSIR adopted a broad pattern of Government of India scales as recommended by the 3rd Pay Commission. It was held that the draughtsmen of CSIR could not claim equality with those of CPWD. It was further held that CSIR was not bound to follow all the recommendations of the Pay Commission, which, as per its bye-laws, stated that conditions of services of its officers and staff shall be governed by CCS (CCA) Rules and CCS (Conduct) Rules for the time being in force. Surely, all recommendations of the Pay Commission shall not be binding upon the respondent Society as well."
However, the context in which those statements were made by the Tribunal are not applicable to the present case, although the applicant is trying to use it for the present case because those statements have been used in Para 8 of the judgment finally to dismiss the claim of Dr. Suresh Mallik for implementing the DACP Scheme and the IRCS has taken the stand as enumerated in Para 8.
37. The applicant's counsel has also relied upon the judgment in Manoj Ambaran Kahar (supra) passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. We have gone through the judgment and we find that in this case, the petitioner - Manoj Ambaran Kahar, who 27 was appointed as a part-time Pathologist with the IRCS, challenged his order of termination and IRCS had raised a preliminary objection as to whether the petitioner would fall within the definition of the term "Workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court held that the petitioner is a workman under the said Act and thereafter the Court only framed the issues for its consideration as follows:-
"(I) Whether the Navsari Branch of the Red Cross Society falls within the ambit of a "State" or an instrumentality of a "State"
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution? (II) Whether there has been any infraction of any statutory rules applicable to the petitioner? To put it in other words, whether the violation of those statutory rules has any bearing so far as the order of termination is concerned so as to make this writ application maintainable.
(III) Whether the Red Cross Society could be said to be performing "public function? To put it in other words, whether the Society discharges any "public function" for the purposes of Article 226 of the Constitution?
(IV) Whether a service voluntarily undertaken can be said to be a public duty?
(V) Whether the action challenged has any public element for the purpose of issue of the writ of mandamus?"
38. The Hon'ble High Court stated that "the Red Cross Society is created under the Indian Red Cross Society Act, and is governed by the provisions of that Act. The statute incorporating the Society does not provide for any obligation which the Society owes to its employees in respect of their services. No statutory rules have been shown to me prescribed, if any, by any authority giving any protection or safeguards to the employees. There is no statutory or a public duty imposed on the Society by the statute in respect of its employees of which enforcement can be sought by means of a mandamus. The 28 impression I have gathered is that the respondent No.1 is free to employ, suspend, remove or dismiss any of its employees and similarly the employees have the right to give up the employment at any time subject to the terms of the contract between the two. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is not available for enforcement of contractual obligations. This petition by the petitioner, therefore, is not maintainable."
39. The Hon'ble Court came to the observations as under:-
(1) If a particular Society can be characterized as a "State"
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution (applying the test evolved by the Supreme Court in that behalf), it would also be an "authority" within the meaning, and for the purpose of Article 226 of the Constitution. In such a situation, an order passed by a Society against its employee in violation of the statutory rules or bye-laws, can be corrected by way of a writ petition. This is not because the bye-laws have the force of law, but on the ground that having framed the bye-laws prescribing the service conditions of its employees, the Society must follow them, in the interest of fairness. If it is left to the sweet will and pleasure of the Society either to follow or not to follow the bye-laws, it would be inherently arbitrary and may very likely give rise to discriminatory treatment. A Society, which is a "State", has to act in conformity with Article 14 and, for that reason, it will be made to follow the bye-laws. (2) In the case in hand, neither any statutory rules governing the appointment nor removal of an employee of the Society nor any bye-laws, if any, have been placed on record nor even relied upon on behalf of the petitioner. Let me for the time being, assume that there are rules or bye-laws for the purpose of appointment or removal of an employee. They would be in the nature of a contract, terms of contract, between the Society and its employees. Hence, where a Society cannot be characterized as a "State" the service conditions of its employees, governed by teh Constitution of the Society, cannot be enforced through a writ petition. This Court would interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case, if the violation of a statutory public duty is established.
(3) Mandamus, certiorari and prohibition are public law remedies. They are not available to enforce private law rights. Every act of a Society, which may be a "State" within 29 the meaning of Article 12 does not necessarily belong to public, law field. A society, which is a "State", may have its private law rights just like a Government. A contractual obligation, which is not statutory, cannot be enforced by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Prior to entering into contract, however, Article 14 operates as explained by the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty (supra)"
40. Therefore, this judgment is actually counterproductive as a careful perusal of the above paragraph shows that the Hon'ble High Court itself states that the respondent no.1 is free to employ, suspend, remove or dismiss any of its employees and similarly, the employees have the right to give up their employment at any time.
41. In the case of K.S. Mallik (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant therein Dr. KS Mallik, who was appointed as Principal in KVS on 31.07.1995, was assailing the action of the KVS. The respondents therein have initiated action under Rule 9(2) of CCS(Pension)Rules after his retirement on 29.02.2004 by the Chairman, KVS. He had taken the view that the Chairman of KVS did not have the competence or authority to take action against him inasmuch as Rule 9(2) of the Pension Rules has not been validly adopted by the KVS, although the respondents took the view therein that the President of India had delegated the powers under CCS(Pension) Rules to the HRD Minister being Chairman as per the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules. Whereas here, the Minister was wearing another hat as Chairman of the KVS which is a society registered under the Society Registration Act. On that ground, adoption of CCS(Pension) Rules has not been validly done in the KVS, the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in that judgment allowed the OA. However, in the absence of 30 information/records produced before us to the contrary by both the counsels and based on our own search of the web, we do not know whether this judgment passed in the year 2007 has attained finality, or not.
42. We are moved by the statement made by the respondents' counsel when he states that traditionally there has been no service rules as such in the IRCS and in much of the day-to-day administration, including the service matters of its employees, the IRCS has taken guidance from the Government of India's OMs and other circulars. He submits that the wording of Section 5 of the IRCS is merely of an enabling nature, whereas the expression used is "may" and not "shall". Therefore, he submits that it is not mandatory to make rules under Section 5. He is placing reliance on the judgment of V.T. Khanzode & Ors. vs. Reserve Bank of India, (1982)2SCC 7 wherein on similar question of law as raised by this applicant in this case, the Court held that this provision does not justify the argument that regulation must be framed under it or not at all. The substance of the matter is that the Central Board has power to frame regulations regarding the conditions of the bank staff. If it has that power, it may exercise either in accordance with Section 58(1) of the Act or by acting in exercise of its general powers under Section 7(2). He also relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of Nagpur Improvement Trust vs. Yadaorao Jagannath Kumbhare & Ors., (1999)8 SCC 99, wherein also it says that in the absence of any statutory rules governing the service conditions of the employees, the executive instructions and/or decisions taken administratively would operate in the field 31 and appointments/promotions can be made in accordance with such executive instructions/administrative directions.
43. We find that if the plea of the applicant is accepted that FR56(j) has not been validly adopted by the Managing Body of IRCS, then all the other administration decisions taken so far by the IRCS concerning service matters of their employees will come into question resulting in administrative chaos.
44. We are also conscious of the fact that compulsory retirement resorted to under FR 56(j) is not a punishment or stigmatic. The impugned order, which the applicant is assailing, shows that the respondents have chosen to compulsory retire the applicant in public interest. We do not want to weigh into this aspect and see whether this has been done in public interest or not, as it is left to the executive to determine whom they want to retain in the organization and whom they consider to be deadwood. In any case, the service record of the applicant as seen from the record here before us shows that he was holding the position of the Deputy Secretary and later for short while even as the charge of Joint Secretary. So there is no perception of stigma in the decision taken by the respondents. Of course, FR 56(j) envisages a Review Committee which has been constituted by the IRCS and it is always open for the applicant to file a review, if he is aggrieved by the decision of the respondents invoking FR56(j). It is a different matter that for reasons best known to the applicant, he has not chosen to go before the Review Committee but only chosen to send the email dated 05.02.2024 32 wherein he questions the competency of the respondents to compulsory retire him by invoking the said FR56(j).
45. We are also conscious of the fact that the Managing Body shall have the powers to make standing orders for running day to day affairs and accordingly, they had come out with the standing orders in the year 1950 and later on superceded the standing orders by issue of their IRCS Rules 1992 and 1994. But these IRCS Rules are also not static in nature and organization like IRCS will have to come out with new standing orders to deal with emergency situations such as the present one wherein they have taken the decision under FR 56(j) to compulsory retire the applicant. In a way one can say that the manner of adopting FR 56(j) by the IRCS is akin to that of the standing order. We do not expect the IRCS to keep troubling the President of India on every occasion to get the approval of the standing order such as the present one and then lay before the both the Houses of Parliament and notify in the gazette notification. After all, the day-to-day affairs of the IRCS was governed by the standing orders from 1950 till 1992 and no one may be questioned that. In fact, for some of those orders and decisions, such as periodically enhancement in salaries and emoluments due to recommendations of successive Pay Commissions, biannual increase of DA/DR etc., the applicant himself along with others have been the beneficiaries wherein similar process as FR 56(j) has been adopted by the IRCS.
46. Under the above facts and circumstances, we do not find merit in the argument of the applicant that FR 56(j) has not been validly 33 adopted by the IRCS. Therefore, we dismiss the OA. No order as to costs.
(B.Anand) (R.N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /lg/