Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Nandini Mukhopadhyay vs M/O Urban Development on 21 July, 2025
1
Item No. 35 O.A. No. 766/2015
Court No. V
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 766/2015
This the 21st day of July, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Nandini Mukhopadhyay,(Architect)
D/o Shri Pijush Kanti Mukherjee,
Aged about 48 years,
R/o D-202, Nivedita Kunj,
R.K. Puram, Sector-10,
New Delhi-110022.
...Applicant
(By Advocate(s): Mr. B C Nagar with
Mr. A K Shukla and
Mr. B L Wanchoo)
Versus
1. Union of India Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Govt. of India, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Director General of Works,
Directorate General of Works,
Central Public Works Department,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
3. Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions,Department of Personnel and Training,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
4. Secretary,Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110011.
....Respondents
(By Advocate(s): Mr. Rajeev Kumar with
Mr. Bhavnesh Shukla
Mr. Lekh Raj Singh for
Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal)
2
Item No. 35 O.A. No. 766/2015
Court No. V
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:-
"(a) Call for the records pertaining to the case.(b) Quash and set aside the provision of Sr No. 4
in Schedule-II of Ministry of Urban Development, Central Architects Service Group 'A' Recruitment Rules, 2012 so far as it provides different treatment in the matter of promotion to the grade of Senior Architect thereby giving undue advantage to juniors in the feeder grade of Architect and direct the respondents to prescribe uniform eligibility service in the grade of Architects without reference to their birth mark;
(c) Declare that the vacancies of Senior Architect which arose prior to 30.10.2012 are to be filled up in accordance with Recruitment Rules which existed before the commencement of the new Recruitment Rules of 2012 and direct the respondents to review the DPCs for promotion to the post of Senior Architects in respect of the vacancies which arose prior to 30.10.2012 and fill up the same in accordance with the old Recruitment Rules by holding year wise DPCs for the vacancies of each year which existed immediately before the 2012 Rules and accordingly modify the date of promotion of the applicant as Senior Architect;
(d) Direct the respondents to modify/correct the order dated 11.09.2012 by ante-dating the date of grant of Non Functional Financial Upgradation to the applicant from 08.08.2007 instead of 01.04.2010;
(e) Direct the respondent to give all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances etc. to the applicant;
(f) Cost of the Original Application may be awarded in favour of the Applicants and justice may be done."
3Item No. 35 O.A. No. 766/2015 Court No. V
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the respondents, by way of an impugned order, have discriminated against the applicant and acted in favor of her immediate junior, Mr. Sushil Kumar Chokhani.
3. During the course of the argument, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is an undisputed fact, as narrated in the counter-affidavit itself, that the applicant had joined government service on 05-03-1990 as Assistant Architect (Gr.B) (Annexure-I). It is submitted that, before 27 February 2004, Recruitment Rules, 1989 were in force (Annexure-2), and there were two feeder grades for promotion to the grade of Architect. The first one was
(i) 50% from Deputy Architects (Group 'A') with 4 years of regular service in the grade, and second (ii) 50% from Assistant Architects (Group 'B') with 8 years of regular service in the grade and possessing educational qualifications specified in Schedule III. It was further mentioned in the counter-affidavit that promotion from Deputy Architects shall be on a non-selection basis, and promotion from the grade of Assistant Architects will be on a selection basis. Assistant Architects and 4 Item No. 35 O.A. No. 766/2015 Court No. V Deputy Architects were promoted during 2000 & 2001. Relevant extracts of the said seniority list are as under:
Sl Name Categ Date of Date of Date of Promt.
. S/Shri ory Birth Joining Appott. From/
N CPWD As Remar
o. Architec ks
t
25 Nandini OC 16.02.1 05.03.1 16.03.2 Asst.
Mukhipad 966 990 000 Arch.
hyay
29 Sushil Kr. OC 15.12.1 02.08.1 05.02.2 Dy.
Chokhani 957 991 001 Arch.
As per the Recruitment Rules for Central Architects Service Group 'A' notified on 27-2-2004 (Annexure-3), out of 83 regular sanctioned posts of Architects in the Central Public Works Department, 35 posts are in the Non-functional Selection Grade, i.e., in the pay scale of Rs. 12,000-375-16,500/- (Pre-revised). As per the R/Rs for CAS Group 'A', 35 posts of Architects have been renamed as Architect (Junior Administrative Grade) Non-functional Selection Grade (NFSG).
Architects with 5 years of regular service in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-16,500/- become eligible for the grant of the pay scale of Rs. 12,000-16,500/- on the basis of seniority and suitability. As per the guideline issued by the DOPT under its O.M. dated 6-6-2000 and 20-12-2000, the NFSG is to be granted to 30% of senior duty posts in cadre/service. Hence, NFSG to 22 Architects was considered by the Ministry of Urban 5 Item No. 35 O.A. No. 766/2015 Court No. V Development, and NFSG was granted to 21 officials, including the applicant (Annexure-4), and vide Office Order No. 30/2/2007-EC-IX dated 19-3-2010 (Annexure-5), the NFSG order was issued. 3.1. Further, as it is apparent from the seniority list dated 05.06.2008 as of 01.06.2008, the applicant was at serial number 25 when she was appointed as an Architect on 16.03.2000, whereas Mr. Sushil Kumar Chokhani was at serial number 29, having joined the post of Architect on 05.02.2001. It is also relevant to mention here that, as per the recruitment rules at the relevant point of time, i.e., prior to 27.07.2004, Recruitment Rules 1989 were in force and there were two feeder categories as highlighted above to the grade of Architect: (i) 50% from Deputy Architect with 4 years' regular service in the grade;
(ii) 50% from Assistant Architects (Group 'B') with 8 years' regular service in the grade and possessing educational qualifications specified in Schedule III. 3.2. Learned counsel for the applicant draws attention to Office Order No. 38 of 2010 dated 19.03.2010, which reads as under:
"The President is pleased to grant Non Functional Selection Grade to the following 21 Architects of Central Public Works Department in the pay scale of Rs. 12000- 6 Item No. 35 O.A. No. 766/2015 Court No. V 16500/- (Pre-revised) with effect from the date mentioned against their names:-
Sl. Name Date of Birth Date of
No. grant of
NFSG
3. Smt. Nandini 16.02.1966 10.10.2005
Mukhopadhyay
6. Shri S K 15.12.1957 31.08.2006
Chokhani
Further action may be taken by the Controlling Officers for pay fixation in respect of the above mentioned officers in terms of DOPT's O.M. No. 22/1/2000-CRD, dated 20.12.2006."
4. It is not in dispute that promotion for the post of Deputy Director shall be on a non-selection basis and promotion from Assistant Architect shall be on a selection basis. Records would further reveal that Ms. Nandini Mukhopadhyay, joined CPWD on 05.03.1990, and Mr. Sushil Kumar Chokhani joined as a Deputy Architect on 02.08.1991. Ms. Nandini Mukhopadhyay, the applicant herein, was granted the selection grade w.e.f. 10.10.2005, whereas Mr. Sushil Kumar Chokhani was granted the selection grade from 31.08.2006 by Office Order dated 19.03.2010 (Annexure-A-8). 4.1. By an Office Order dated 27.04.2012, the CAS Officers of CPWD were granted NFU to the grade of Director in Pay Band-4 (Rs. 37400-67000) + GP Rs. 8700/-, wherein Mr. Sushil Kumar Chokhani was at serial no. 7 and was accorded the benefit of NFU from 08.08.2007 to the detriment of the applicant herein. It is 7 Item No. 35 O.A. No. 766/2015 Court No. V the case of the applicant that all throughout the services, the feeder category and for the purpose of grant of NFU, the incumbent should have been in service as stipulated therein, for the purpose of grant of NFU for the post of Architect. The applicant fulfills all the conditions; it is only the feeder category which has to be seen for the purpose of grant of NFU. The date of induction, i.e., the birth in the cadre, on the relevant date for consideration for NFU.
5. What transpires from the perusal of the records and counter-affidavit filed by the respondents is that Mr. Sushil Kumar Chokhani was accorded the benefit under the old Rules, whereas the applicant herein was accorded the NFU in 2010, based on the new Recruitment Rules, which came to be notified in suppression of the earlier 2004 Rules. 5.1. In the instant O.A., there is a challenge to serial number 4 of Schedule-II of the Ministry of Urban Development Central Architects Service Group 'A' Recruitment Rules 2012, relevant extracts from which read as under:-
S. No. Name of Method of Field of selection and minimum Post recruitment qualifying service for promotion
4. Senior By Architect in Pay Band-3, 15600-
Architect Promotion 39100/- with Grade Pay of 6600/- with thirteen years of 8 Item No. 35 O.A. No. 766/2015 Court No. V regular service in group A posts in the service out of which at least four years of regular service should be in the grade of Architect including regular service, if any, rendered in the non-functional Second Grade in Pay Band-3, 15600-39100 + Grade Pay of 7600/- and have successfully completed two week course on Higher Administration and Project Management; or Architect in Pay Band-3, 15600- 39100/- with Grade Pay of Rs.
6600/- with nine years regular service including regular service, if any, rendered in the non-functional Second Grade in Pay Band-3, 15600-39100+ Grade Pay of 7600/- and have successfully completed two week course on Higher Administration and Project Management.
However, at this stage, learned counsel for the applicant does not press the same as he is drawing reference viz. a viz. immediate junior of the applicant, i.e., Mr. Sushil Kumar Chokhani for grant of NFU and anti dating of the same.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant would contend that the respondents have wrongly misapplied the new Rules in question to the applicant, in comparison to her immediate junior, Mr. Sushil Kumar Chokhani, who, as per the chronological order highlighted above, was always junior to the applicant, even in the feeder category, and was later appointed to the post of Architect.
9Item No. 35 O.A. No. 766/2015 Court No. V
7. The records would reveal that the denial of the benefit to the applicant is based on the premise that NFU has nothing to do with the seniority list. NFU is granted to officials with reference to the batch of recruitment and after fulfilling the conditions of eligibility stipulated in the recruitment rules for promotion to the grade. The applicant joined service as Assistant Architect (Gr.B) and, as per the Recruitment Rules, the officer should complete the required length of service in Gr.A. The applicant was inducted into Gr. 'A' upon her promotion. The NFU was granted to the applicant based on the guidelines issued by the DOPT vide O.M. dated 24-04-2009.
7.1. What has been overlooked is that the DoPT circular itself contemplated the requisite number of years of service to be granted, which was followed by DoP&T instructions vide O.M. dated 29.12.2010, where a direction was issued recommending that the Rules be suitably amended. Accordingly, the Rules were suitably amended. However, there is no explanation as to why the respondents waited for the Rules to be amended, while, in the case of Mr. Sushil Kumar Chokhani, the benefit of NFU was already granted in a timely manner.
10Item No. 35 O.A. No. 766/2015 Court No. V 7.2. Furthermore, we are strengthened by a recent decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 807/2021 titled Dr. Subodh Jha and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., decided on 12.06.2025, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held as under:
"51. From the above, it emerges that although the DACP scheme was applicable to CHS Medical Officers as per the 5th CPC recommendations, the benefit of NFFU under the 6th CPC was made available to such officers only if, after the grant of benefits under the DACP scheme, a disparity existed between the pay of eligible officers in OGAS and the pay drawn by IAS officers posted at the Centre.
52. Pertinently, in view of Tenth Report of Second Administrative reforms‟ recommendations of the Government of India, like the CHS falling under Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, a Organized Group-A Central Civil Service, the BSF Health Service, the CRPF Health Service and the ITBP health service, falling under Ministry Of Home Affairs, are also included in the list of Organized Group-A Central Civil Services.
53. It is to be noted that Railway Boards Letter No. PC VI/2009/I/4/R-6/1 dated 08.06.2018 granted the benefit of NFFU to the Medical Officers of Indian Railway Medical Services.
54. Moreover, this Court has adjudged CAPFs GD cadre as Central Group-A Service since 1986 as these services were listed as Central Group-A civil services I cadre Monograph 1986. CAPFs Medical Cadres were also listed in the same list, hence they are also similarly placed and should have been given all benefits allowed to CAPFs GD Cadre.
55. Consequently, the Medical Officers of the BSF, CRPF, and ITBP, like those of the CHS, would also be entitled to the benefits under the NFFU scheme as granted by the 6th CPC, regardless of their coverage under the DACP scheme. However, it is made clear that the grant of NFFU to eligible officers of these three health services, i.e., BSF, CRPF, and ITBP Health Services, would apply only if, after the benefits under the DACP scheme have been granted, a disparity exists between the 11 Item No. 35 O.A. No. 766/2015 Court No. V pay of these officers in OGAS and the pay drawn by IAS officers posted at the Centre.
56. In the conspectus of aforesaid circumstances, the respondents are hereby directed to issue the necessary orders granting the benefit of the NFFU scheme and other benefits under the 6th CPC to the Medical Officers of the BSF Health Service, the CRPF Health Service, and the ITBP Health Service, as part of OGAS with effect from 01.01.2006. The requisite orders shall be issued within twelve weeks from today."
8. In view of the above, the action of the respondents, as per the impugned order dated 11.09.2012, is liable to be quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of NFU to the applicant from the date on which Mr. Sushil Kumar Chokhani was granted the benefit. All consequential benefits, including arrears, shall also follow. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
9. The present O.A. is disposed of in the above terms. Pending M.As, if any, are also disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/SG/