Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ramnivas Shanwal vs Cabinet Secretariat on 3 February, 2026
1 O.A No. 4499/2015
Item 28 (C-3)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 4499/2015
Reserved on : 14.01.2026
Pronounced on : 03.02.2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
1. Ramnivas Shanwal,
Aged About 43 Years,
S/o Late Sh. Pratap Singh,
R/o Flat No. 61A, Ground Floor,
Indraprastha Colony, Sec-30-33, Faridabad-121003
2. Debasish Goswami,
Aged About 47 Years,
S/o Late Sh. D.K. Goswami,
R/o 71-C, Kanchanjunga Apartments,
Sec-53, Noida-201301
3. Rajeev Kumar,
Aged About 47 Years,
S/o Late Sh. Roshan Lal,
R/o Qtr. No. 38, Road No. 3, Type-III,
Andrews Ganj, New Delhi-110049
4. K.V. Ajeet Kumar,
Aged About 43 Years,
S/o Late Sh. K. Vasudevan,
R/o D-1/74, Lodhi Colony,
New Delhi-110003 ....Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Though Cabinet Secretary,
Govt. of India, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi-110004
2. Directorate General of Security,
Aviation Research Centre, Cabinet Secretariat,
Govt. of India, East Block-V,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066
3. The Special Secretary.
Aviation Research Centre,
Digitally signed by
MAYA BAHADUR
MAYA BAHADUR
SINGH TARAGI
SINGH TARAGI
2 O.A No. 4499/2015
Item 28 (C-3)
Cabinet Secretariat,
Govt. of India, East Block-V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066
4. The Dy. Director (Pers.),
Directorate General of Security.
Aviation Research Centre.
Cabinet Secretariat,
Govt. of India, East Block-V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066
5. The Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training.
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001
6. Shweta Gupta
Field Officer (G)
7. R.P. Singh Field Officer (G)
8. Atanu Kr. Dey Field Officer (G)
9. Ramneesh Kumar, Field Officer (G)
10. N.S. Brar Field Officer (G)
11. Duryodhan Sahu, Field Officer (G)
12. D.S. Murthy, Field Officer (G)
13. Jagdish Kumar, Field Officer (G)
Service to Private Respondents No. 6 to 13 (incumbents of Store/ SFF) be
effected by Respondent No. 4 i.e. Dy. Director (Pers.), Directorate General
of Security, ARC
....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. R. K. Jain)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :
The instant OA has been filed by the applicants under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"1. Call for the records of the case and examine the same.
2. Quash and set aside the Combined Draft Seniority list of Field Officer (G) circulated vides Office OM NO. ARC/Pers.IV/490/2011, Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 3 O.A No. 4499/2015 Item 28 (C-3) Dated 12.09.2011 thereafter, OM. No. ARC/Pers.IV/482/2014-729, Dated 30.06.2014 and Memorandum No. ARC/Pers-IV/482/2014, OM No. ARC/06/01/2014-Pers.1, ARC/Pers-IV/482/2014, No.ARC/Pers. IV/483/2013-1140, and 07/05/2015, 23/04/2015, 22/04/2015 OM. dated and 21/07/2014 annexed as Annexure A-1 Colly to the application.
3. Quash and set aside the merger of the three cadres of ARC (Junior Executives), SFF (Field Officers) and ARC Logistics Staff Service (Store Cadre) done in Nov 2010.
4. Direct the respondents to redraft the combined seniority list on the basis of total length of service so as to bring uniformity in the seniority and to protect the service seniority of the applicants considering the prevalent service condition of the erstwhile cadre.
5. Direct the respondents to formulate a promotion policy that does not creates inequality and gives due legal weightage and regard to the service seniority of the applicants in accordance with the DOPT instructions.
6. Quash the direct recruitment of SFO (G) or direct the respondents to fix their seniority from the date of appointment in ARC.
7. Pass such further and other order(s), which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicants is that the applicants joined as Deputy Field Officer (G) on different dates and later promoted as Field Officer (G) also on different dates. They are presently working as Field Officers. Subsequently, a Cadre Review of Aviation Research Centre (ARC) and Special Frontier Force (SFF) in Directorate General of Security (DGS) took place in November 2010 which was headed by the Cabinet Secretary whereby the cadre of ARC Logistics (Stores) and SFF (Field Officer) were merged with the ARC's Executive Cadre on 'as is was basis' by treating unequal's as equals. According to the counsel the said cadre review was forced upon them as well as other employees as the same was done without their consent and no option was also sought from them in this regard, thereby violating their fundamental Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 4 O.A No. 4499/2015 Item 28 (C-3) rights particularly when their willingness was not sought before the merger took place. Even the total length of their service and stagnation faced by them was also not taken care of while drafting the Combined Seniority List and thus created a situation where nine junior incumbents of other erstwhile two cadres became senior to them in the post of Field Officer (G) by virtue of early promotion of the juniors in the erstwhile cadres. As per the counsel for the applicants the present cadre review was the first since the formation of the organization i.e., on 1975-76 and in the last 34 years only the recruitment rules were amended once in 2002-03 which further stagnated their cadre as promotion quota for cadre officers was further reduced without constituting any Cadre Review Committee at that time and even many deputationists were also regularized during that period which further reduced their change to get promoted and the exercise of cadre review could be carried out only in 2010. He further highlighted that the cadre review for Logistic Staff Service (Store) Cadre of ARC took place twice, firstly in 2003 just four years after the constitution of the cadre in 1999 whereby various posts were created and the mode of recruitment for promotional posts was made '100% by promotion' for the Store Cadre Officers and the second cadre review along with the amendment in the recruitment rules of Logistics (Store) Staff Services took place in 2006-07 which retained 100% promotion quota for the Store Cadre Officers. Thus the Store Cadre Officers got timely promotions as Field Officer (Stores) due to two cadre reviews at regular intervals of time however, the applicants were deprived of such benefit due to untimely and irregular cadre review. He argued that the minimum educational qualifications prescribed for both the cadres of Logistic Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 5 O.A No. 4499/2015 Item 28 (C-3) Staff Service of ARC and Executive Cadre for direct recruitment to the post of Deputy Field Officers are different. For Logistic Staff Service only Degree from recognized university with 02 years experience or 03 years Diploma in Electronics or Telecommunication or Computer Science was required whereas for Executive Cadre only a Bachelor's Degree was required. Moreover, the merger was affected without considering the functional and other aspects required to be considered for cadre review. The main grievance of the applicants is that 09 juniors have now became their senior due to this merger by virtue of the earlier promotion of their juniors within a short span of time on which the applicants have no control whereas, the applicants did not have that opportunity of getting promoted as no cadre review took place in their cadre. This illegality in their seniority position was pointed out by the applicants through various representations however, nothing fruitful has been done so far. As per the counsel, after merger the promotion quota of cadre officers from Field Officers to Senior Field Officers was further reduced from 60% to 50% i.e., 50:40:10, 50% by Promotion, 40% by Direct Recruitment & 10% by Deputation/Absorption) which created a significant stagnation in the Executive Cadre violating the fundamental aspects of the cadre review set by the DoPT time to time. The counsel for the applicants took shelter under the DoPT OM dated 10.02.2011 which provided for need of periodic cadre review to meet the functional requirements of the organisation and career progression of the employees. It further provided that 'the proposal would be formulated to the extent possible in consultation with the representatives of service association(s).' Aggrieved by their position in the seniority list as well as non observance of Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 6 O.A No. 4499/2015 Item 28 (C-3) the guidelines of DoPT by the respondents while carrying out merger, the applicants represented to the authorities on different occasions viz. 02.03.2015, 23.02.2015 and 01.04.2015 highlighting the discrepancy in the Draft Seniority List to which the respondents though responded vide their memorandums dated 22.04.2015, 23.04.2015 and 07.05.2015 however, failed to consider their grievances. The counsel further contended that inspite of the implementation of the cadre review in Nov, 2010 and new RRs from Feb, 2011 onwards, the department has not been able to fill up the vacant posts that were created in the current cadre review at the Senior Executive Level which are either lying vacant or filled up by deputation-cum- absorption. Hence, after running from pillar to post the applicants have now filed the instant OA seeking the above quoted reliefs.
3. The counsel of the applicants argued assiduously and handed across the Bar a copy of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in Om Kumar & Others vs. UOI (2001). Paras 66 and 67 of the said judgment upon which the applicants have relied is reproduced below :-
"66. It is clear from the above discussion that in India where administrative action is challenged under Article 14 as being discriminatory. equals are treated unequally or unequals are treated equally, the question is for the Constitutional Courts as primary reviewing courts to consider g correctness of the level of discrimination applied and whether it is excessive and whether it has a nexus with the objective intended to be achieved by the administrator. Here the court deals with the merits of the balancing action of the administrator and is, in essence, applying "proportionality" and is a primary reviewing authority.
67. But where an administrative action is challenged as "arbitrary" under Article 14 of the basis of Royappa (as in cases where punishments in disciplinary cases are challenged), the question will be whether the administrative order is "rational" or "reasonable and the test then is the Wednesbury test. The courts would then be confined only to a secondary role and will only have to see whether the administrator has done well in his primary role, whether he has acted illegally or has omitted Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 7 O.A No. 4499/2015 Item 28 (C-3) relevant factors from consideration or has taken irrelevant factors into consideration whether his view is one which no reasonable person could have taken. If his action does not satisfy these rules, it is to be treated as arbitrary. In G.B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council (SCC at p. 111).] Venkatachaliah, J. (as he then was) pointed out that "reasonableness" of the administrator under Article 14 in the context of administrative law has to be judged from the stand point of Wednesbury rules. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India (SCC at pp. 679-80), Indian Express Newspapers Bombay (P) Lid. v. Union of India (SCC at p. 691), Supreme Court Employees Welfare Assn. v. Union of India) (SCC at p. 241) and U.P. Financial Corpn. v. Gem Cap d (India) (P).
Ltd. 42 (SCC at p. 307) while judging whether the administrative action is "arbitrary" under Article 14 (i.e. otherwise then being discriminatory), this Court has confined itself to a Wednesbury review always."
4. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the arguments of the counsel of the applicants and highlighted that all the three cadres that are merged worked under the same umbrella of Directorate General of Security hence the applicants have been assigned inter se seniority below the 08 FOs (G) who belonged to the erstwhile ARC, Store/Logistic Cadre and SFF, Field cadre. Further, taking cues from his counter affidavit, he stated that the merger was done in public interest, in the interest of smooth functioning of the organisation and overall career progression of the incumbents of the relevant cadres and in the interest of National Security and well being. He stated that ARC is a security organisation functioning in the National security interests and consultation with the representative of service associations for cadre review of ARC and SFF in DG(S) is not permissible.
5. He further relied on the averments made vide his MA/4033/2024 dated 23.10.2024 which was allowed by the Tribunal on 17.12.2024. The averments made therein in the MA are as follows :-
"1. That in the above mentioned OA, the Applicants have prayed before this Hon'ble Tribunal mainly to quash and set aside the Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 8 O.A No. 4499/2015 Item 28 (C-3) merger of 3 cadres of ARC [Junior Executives], SFF [Field Officers] and ARC Logistics Staff Service [Store Cadre] as had been done consequent upon implementation of Cadre Review- 2010 and quashing the combined seniority list prepared in the grade of Field Officer (General) subsequent to the merger of these three cadres.
2. That the respondents have already filed their counter reply in the above case, the contents of the same may kindly be read as a part and parcel of this para.
3. That it is hereby submitted that the applicant has sought relief by challenging the implementation of Cadre Review held in 2010 by which Gol had decided to merge the abovesaid three cadres into one cadre named Executive Cadre, ARC in the overall interest of the organisation. Subsequent to this merger, a combined seniority list was prepared in the grade of Field Officer (General). Aggrieved by this, the applicants have filed the OA instant to quash the policy decision of merger alongwith the combined seniority list which is pending adjudication before this Hon'ble Tribunal.
4. That it is further submitted before this Hon'ble Tribunal that besides the OA instant, some of the employees of the Respondent's department have also filed OAs in different benches of the Hon'ble Tribunal for seeking relief by challenging the implementation of Cadre Review held in 2010.
5. That it is pertinent to take into account the fact that in one of the case i.e. OA No. 297/2015 titled Khimanand Vs UOI, the Allahabad Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal vide their order dated 03.04.2024 has dismissed the OA and has held that a Tribunal functioning within the strict boundaries of the governing legislation would not have the power to direct the formation of a policy. Furthermore in para 16 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Tribunal has reiterated that "in a long catena of judgments, the Apex Court has ruled that Tribunal and High Court shall not entertain and interfere with the policy making domain of the executive wing of Government". A true copy of same is annexed herewith as Ann. MA-1.
6. That further, it is hereby submitted that by taking into consideration the judgment dated 03.04.2024 passed by the Allahabad Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal, the Cuttack Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal has also dismissed the OA 176/2016 titled Manoranjan Mishra Vs UOI vide its judgment dated 25.04.2024 and has stated that the Respondents as an employer has every right to re-organize the cadre structure and effect merger of the cadre or create new cadres based on the necessity and work requirement. A true copy of same is annexed herewith as Ann. MA-2.
7. That in continuation of the above, Cuttack Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal has also dismissed OA No. 260/00076/2021 titled Biswajit Pandab vs UOI vide its judgment dated 24.09.2024 by Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 9 O.A No. 4499/2015 Item 28 (C-3) taking cognisance of above cited judgments. In para 05 of this Judgment, the Hon'ble Tribunal has reminded the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in WP(C) No. 607/2021 titled Jacob Puliyal Vs UOI & Ors that "it is well settled that the Courts, in exercise of their power of Judicial Review, do not ordinary interfere with the policy decision of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on the grounds of mala fide, unreasonable, arbitrariness or unfairness ete" A true copy of same is annexed herewith as Ann. MA-3.
8. That thus, it is humbly submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal may take into consideration the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad as well as the Hon'ble Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal and may pleased to take a similar view.
PRAYER In view of the submission made above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to allow the above MA and take on record the above judgements passed by the Allahabad and the Cuttack Benches of Hon'ble Tribunals and the OA may kindly be dismissed. Any other order, in view of the above facts and circumstances, which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed."
He also handed across the Bar a relied upon decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA 2726/2018 pronounced on 27.05.2025.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions; examined the documents on record and perused the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal as well as the Judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts. We have noted that the applicants are agitated and aggrieved by the administrative decision of the respondents to merge the three cadres of ARC (Executive); ARC (Logistics) and SFF (Field). It is a settled principle in administrative law and service jurisprudence that administrative decisions like merger/de-merger of cadres lie exclusively in the domain of the Executive as per the Doctrine of Separation of Powers/Checks and Balances. Under the principle of Implied Limitation, Digitally signed by MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 10 O.A No. 4499/2015 Item 28 (C-3) restraint and reasonable responsibility, the three organs of the State - Executive; Legislature and Judiciary have to respect their boundaries and limitations and understand that 'Discretion is the better part of valour'. Judicial review of administrative decisions should be undertaken if there is any illegality, mala fide, unfairness, arbitrariness, unreasonableness, irrationality, violation of principles of natural justice and dis-proportionality - Yes! We have noted that the cadres were not consulted when the merger took place but then we have also observed that the respondents are a secret and a sensitive organisation and consultations with stakeholders are not permissible. Also we have no reason to doubt the 'bona fides' of the respondents and we believe that the administrative decision of merger was taken in public interest and in the best interests of our National Security; to enhance the administrative efficiency and effectiveness of the organisation. The merger in the long term would open up new opportunities for promotion; job variety; job rotation; job enlargement and job enrichment for all the cadres in the organisations. Thus we are sanguine that the merger would lead to a win-win situation for all and not a win-loose situation. We have also noted the decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in -
(i) OA/330/297/2015 - Khimanand & Others vs. UOI (Aviation Research Centre) and others pronounced on 03.04.2024 by the Allahabad Bench of CAT.
(ii) OA/260/00176/2016 - Manoranjan Mishra vs. UOI (Aviation Research Centre) & Others pronounced on 25.04.2024 by the Cuttack Bench of CAT.Digitally signed by
MAYA BAHADUR MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 11 O.A No. 4499/2015 Item 28 (C-3)
(iii) OA/260/00076/2021 - Biswajit Pandeb vs. UOI (Aviation Research Centre) pronounced on 24.09.2024 by the Cuttack Bench of CAT.
(iv) OA/2726/2018 - Pooran Lal & Others vs. Director General of Security (Aviation Research Centre) pronounced on 27.05.2025 by Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal.
The above quoted OAs have discussed and analysed quite similar matters of human resource management of Aviation Research Centre (ARC) and dismissed the OAs. We, therefore, find no reason to deviate from the decisions given in the above OAs.
7. In the light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the balance of convenience in the instant OA clearly lies with the respondents. The instant OA lacks merit; deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. MAs if any are also disposed of in the same manner. However, there will be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/
Digitally signed by
MAYA BAHADUR
MAYA BAHADUR
SINGH TARAGI
SINGH TARAGI