Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Mukul Bhatnagar vs Comptroller And Auditor- General Of ... on 13 October, 2025
1
OA No.789/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.789/2019
Order reserved on: 09.09.2025
Date of order: 13.10.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI LOK RANJAN, MEMBER (A)
1. Mukul Bhatnagar S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal Bhatnagar R/o type 3,
102, A.G. Colony, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur-302015 working as A.A.O. in
SSG (BLC) in the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Rajasthan
Jaipur Mob. 9414926105
2. Smt. Nikita Sharma W/o Late Shri Avdhesh Kumar
3. Vinod Prakash Jain S/o Shri Nanak Chand Jain
4. Smt. Neelam Sharma D/o Shri Madan Chandra Sharma
5. Sudhir Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Lakhpat Ram Gupta
6. Deen Dayal Jangir S/o Shri Kana Ram Jangir
7. Ramesh Chandra Sameria S/o Shri Gopi Ram Sameria
8. Girdhari Lal Darji S/o Late Shri Murlidhar
9. Lallu Lal Kumawat S/o Shri Damodar Lal Kumawat
10. Shesh Narain Sain S/o Shri Gaindi Lal
(Applicants working in the office of the Accountant General (A&E),
Rajasthan Jaipur)
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri Anil Kumar Garg)
VERSUS
1. Union of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New
Delhi - 110124 through its Secretary.
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure,
North Block, Government of India, New Delhi.
3. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, 9 - Deen Dayal
Upadhaya Marg, New Delhi-110124.
4. The Accountant General (A&E), Rajasthan Janpath, Jaipur-302005.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Lalit Mohan Bhardwaj)
2
OA No.789/2019
ORDER
Per : Hon'ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)
The present application on behalf of 10Applicants(initially by 17of which 07 had been deleted vide M.A. No.298/2021 dated 08.07.2021) had been filed upon being aggrieved by the impugned Letter dated 09.01.2019 issued by the Office of Comptroller and Auditor General of India (C.&A.G.) - with a common content although which had been conveyed to the Applicants individually by the Accountant General, Accounts & Entitlements (A.&E.), i.e. Respondent No.4 vide communication dated 23.01.2019 - thereby denying to the Applicants the grant of Non-Functional Up-gradation (N.F.U.) from Level-8 to Level-9 ; inter-alia since 04 years of regular service of Assistant Accounts Officers (A.A.O.) was requisite for that, whereas the Applicants had served as A.A.O. either on ad- hoc basis or on regular temporary (R.T.) posts.
2. The present common O.A. had been filed by the Applicants, who were all similarly placed statedly ; as their grievances were essentially similar, arising out of the same impugned actions and Orders of the Respondents and they were seeking the same relief, on identical grounds. Hence, the issues in the present O.A. were being taken up in common for all the Applicantstogether.
3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the relevant matrix of facts had emerged to be as follows briefly. The Applicants in the present O.A. were initially appointed as Clerks/Accountants in the Indian Audit & Accounts Department (I.A.&A.D.), the Respondentorganization. In different years (1994, 2005, 2006) later,they had passed the Section Officer's Grade Examination (S.O.G.E.)required for promotion as A.A.O. While they were awaiting promotion as such, the C.&A.G. HeadquartersOffice (H.O.)had vide Circular dated 25.03.2009introduceda Scheme for 3 OA No.789/2019 regularization of existing ad-hoc Section Officers [eventually, A.A.O.(R.T.)]and promotion of wait-listed S.O.G.E. passed officials as ad-hoc Section Officers [eventually, A.A.O.(Ad-hoc)], subject to terms and conditions as prescribed therein. For the new posts of A.A.O.(Ad-hoc) to promote all wait-listed S.O.G.E. passed officialsincluding also the Applicants in the present O.A, it had been specified inter alia - vide point-(ii, iv) that the posts held by such officials before their ad-hoc promotion would be kept in abeyance, so that there would be no addition to the total sanctioned strength ; vide point-(v) that the officials appointed to the new posts of ad-hoc S.O.s would not be given any supervisory responsibilities and the creation of those posts would not increase the number of Sections in any office ; and vide point-(vii) that the appointees as A.A.O.(Ad-hoc) would continue to discharge the same functions and duties as discharged by Senior Accountants/Accountants.
Accordingly, for the offices under the A.G.(A.&E.) Rajasthan, Jaipur, sanction was conveyed vide letter dated 08.07.2009 inter alia for creation of 56 temporary posts of A.A.O. (Ad-hoc). Pursuantly, after convening the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) as prescribed under the extant Rules in respect of A.A.O.s, and based upon its recommendations vide meeting dated 12.08.2009, a total of 53 officials, also including 09Applicants (except Applicant No.10) in the present O.A.,had been promoted to the newly created posts of A.A.O.(Ad-hoc) vide Office Order No.107 dated 26.08.2009. Later, vide Principal A.G.(A&E) Rajasthan, Jaipur Office Order No.56 dated 04.08.2014, the Applicant No.1 was made A.A.O. regular w.e.f. 06.02.2014 and 08 others (Applicants No.02 to No.09, again except Applicant No.10) had been regularized as A.A.O. (R.T.) purportedly w.e.f. different dates between the years 2009 to 2013. 4 OA No.789/2019
4. Later,the revised pay structure of 7th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2016, inter alia for A.A.O.s had been communicated by the C.&A.G.H.O.vide Letter dated 09.07.2018 on the subject 'Implementation of recommendations of 7th CPC - para 11.12.140 - Grant of grade pay Rs.5400/- (PB-2) i.e. Pay Level-9 of Pay Matrix in case of Assistant Accounts Officers/Assistant Audit Officers in I.A.&A.D." - which had statedly been issued in accordance with the relevant Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure Resolution dated 25.07.2016 at Para-10and O.M. dated 18.06.2018 and its subsequent clarification vide O.M. dated 27.06.2018. It had been provided thereby that the pay inter alia of A.A.O.s in I.A.&A.D. under revised pay structure of CPC-VII w.e.f. 01.01.2016 would be in Level-8 of Pay Matrix ; and in Level-9 on completion of 4 years in G.P. of Rs.4800/-(PB-2)/Level-8, subject to the terms and conditions inter alia that the grant of N.F.U.in Pay Level-9 shall be admissible to the A.A.O.s of I.A.&A.D.on completion of 04 years of regular service in the cadre from the date of joining as A.A.O. Also, vide circular dated 05.09.2018 of the C.&A.G.H.O. in respect of the point of doubt whether service rendered as S.O./A.A.O.(Ad-hoc/RT) was to be reckoned for grant of N.F.U., it had been clarified that only service rendered from appointment as regular S.O./A.A.O. was to be reckoned for computing 04 years of service accordingly.
5. In this regard, the Applicants as well as other similar employees had submitted representations to the C.&A.G.for consideration of their services rendered as A.A.O.(Ad-hoc/R.T.) for the purpose of granting N.F.U. to Level-9 after completion of 04 years of service in the Level-8. Such representations came to be decided and were not acceded to vide the impugned Letter dated 09.01.2019 of the Office of C.&A.G. addressed to Principal A.G.(A.&E.) on the subject of Grant of N.F.U. to A.A.O.s in Level-9. Thereby it had been conveyed inter alia - that Para 11.12.140 of the 7th CPC related only to A.A.O. under Defence Chapter, whereas 5 OA No.789/2019 vide O.M. dated 04.07.2018, the benefit of N.F.U. was allowed only to A.A.O.s in Central Civil Accounts and extended to A.A.O.s in I.A.&A.D. only subsequently ; that A.A.O.(Ad-hoc/R.T.) continued to perform the work of the post of Sr. Accountant/Accountantfrom which they were appointed as per duties spelled out in the relevant circular issued in the matter and thus their duties as such were not the same as performed by regular A.A.O.s ; and that benefit of financial upgradation under A.C.P./M.A.C.P. to A.A.O.(Ad-hoc/R.T.) were granted under the provisions of D.O.P.&T. O.M. dated 19.05.2009 on that subject. Hence, the benefit of N.F.U. as prayed to be granted after completion of 04 years of service as A.A.O.(Ad- hoc/R.T.)could not be granted.
6. Aggrieved by the foregoing, the Applicants had vide the present O.A. prayed for the substantive reliefs inter alia - that the impugned order/communication letter dated 09.01.2019 be quashed and set aside ; and that the Respondents be directed to grant N.F.U. benefits to the Applicants w.e.f. 01.01.2016.
7. It was the case of the Applicants that they were eligible to be given N.F.U. benefit of enhancement of their G.P. from Rs.4800/- (i.e. Level-8) to Rs.5400/- (i.e. Level-9) w.e.f. 01.01.2016 because the period served as A.A.O.(Ad-hoc/R.T.) had to be necessarily counted for granting N.F.U. also, since it was counted for M.A.C.P. Scheme benefit. It was also the case of the Applicants that the impugned action of the Respondents was also in disregard of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Order dated 25.04.2012 in D.B. C.W.P. No.7850/2011 and the Order dated 03.08.2012 in the connected R.A. No.115/2012 ; and the Order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the related S.L.P.(C) No.(16645-16646)/2013.
8. Vide their reply, the Respondents had agreed only to the matters of facts on record, inter alia -that the Applicants were 6 OA No.789/2019 initially appointed as Clerks/Accountants and had passed the S.O.G.E. in different years (1994, 2005, 2006) ; that in pursuance of the Scheme inter alia for promotion of wait-listed S.O.G.E. passed officials as A.A.O.(Ad-hoc) vide circular dated 25.03.2009 of the C.&A.G. H.O., 56 temporary posts of A.A.O.(Ad-hoc)were created for the establishment under A.G.(A.&E.), Rajasthan, Jaipurvide the C.&A.G. H.O. Letter dated 13.07.2009; that based on the recommendations of the duly constituted D.P.C. vide meeting dated 12.08.2009, the Applicant officials inter alia had been promoted as A.A.O.(Ad-hoc) vide Office Order No.107 dated 26.08.2009 of A.G.(A.&E.), Rajasthan, Jaipur ; and that vide Office Order No.56 dated 04.08.2014 of the Principal A.G.(A&E) Rajasthan, Jaipur,the regularization effective from different dates between the years 2009 to 2013 was done for 52 A.A.O.(Ad-hoc) officials - wherein Applicant No.1 in the present O.A. had been regularized against a vacant permanent post, whereas 08 others [Applicants No.(02-09) in the O.A.] had been regularized as A.A.O.(R.T.) purportedly.
The Respondents had further underlined and agreed inter alia - that it had been communicated by the C.&A.G. H.O. vide Letter dated 09.07.2018 that effective from 01.01.2016, N.F.U. from Pay- Level-8 to Pay Level-9 shall be admissible to the A.A.O.s on completion of 04 years of regular service ; that vide circular dated 05.09.2018 of the C.&A.G. H.O., it had been clarified that only service rendered from appointment as regular S.O./A.A.O. was to be reckoned for computing 04 years of service for grant of N.F.U. to Level-9 ; and that the representations of the Applicants as well as other similar employees for reckoning services rendered as A.A.O.(Ad-hoc/R.T.) towards completion of 04 years' service for the purpose of granting N.F.U. to Level-9 had been considered and rejected vide impugned Letter dated 09.01.2019 of C.&A.G. H.O. 7 OA No.789/2019
9. Per contra, the other contentions of the Applicants had been denied and contested by the Respondents. It had been specifically mentioned that vide the Scheme circulated on 25.03.2009 inter alia for promotion of wait-listed S.O.G.E. passed officials and regularization of existent S.O.(Ad-hoc) - A.A.O.(Ad- hoc/R.T.)appointed as such were required to discharge the same functions and duties as discharged by Sr. Accountants and Accountants ; and were not given any supervisory responsibilities or independent charge of any Section, which were assigned to regular A.A.O.s only. Thus, the services rendered as A.A.O.(Ad- hoc/R.T.) were not those of regular A.A.O./Section Officers in Level-8, hence those cannot be reckoned for grant of N.F.U. from Level-8 to Level-9.
It had also been contended that the services rendered by the officials in the capacity of Section Officer(Ad-hoc)/A.A.O.s (Ad-hoc) in the I.A.&A.D. were to be treated as qualifying service for financial up-gradation under A.C.P./M.A.C.P. Schemes as per the provisions of the respective Schemes ; but there was no inherent right to treat the period of their ad-hoc service as regular service for any other purpose.Hence, in light of all of the foregoing, the Respondents contended that the present O.A. of the Applicants was devoid of merit and substance and liable to be dismissed.
10. Through their pleadings and in course of the related arguments, reliance had been placed on behalf of the parties on various cases decided by Tribunals/Courts, to support their respective contentions. On behalf of the Applicants, reliance had been placed on the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Order dated 25.04.2012 in the D.B. C.W.P. No.7850/2011 - wherein the matter was whether the persons, who were promoted as A.A.O.(Ad-hoc) should be treated as eligible to appear in the Incentive Examination of 2011 for A.A.O.s and they should be 8 OA No.789/2019 treated at par with the A.A.O.s holding their post on regular temporary basis. Thereby, sit had been decided with reference to C.&A.G. H.O. Letter dated 11.05.2010 inter alia - that the said letter made it clear that all A.A.O.s' promoted as Ad-hoc or regular temporary basis, were treated as one group i.e. Group 'B' Gazetted for all purpose ; and that the members of petitioner-Association, who were holding the posts of A.A.O.(Ad-hoc) as promotees, were also eligible to appear in the Incentive Examination of 2011. It was further submitted that vide the Order dated 03.08.2012 in the connected R.A. No.115/2012, the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan had held the view that there was no error apparent on the face of record so as to review the order passed ; thus, upon finding no merit in the same, the said review petition had also been dismissed.Further, in the related S.L.P.(C) No.(16645- 16646)/2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had vide Order dated 09.12.2015 decided that - "Heard learned counsel for the parties. The special leave petitions are dismissed."
In his arguments related, the learned Counsel for the Respondents had submitted that the said matter was related to eligibility for appearing at the Incentive Examination for 2011, for which the A.A.O.s(Ad-hoc) and A.A.O.s(R.T.) were decided to be deemed as belonging to one group, i.e. Group-B Gazetted. The said matter had been substantively decided in 2012, i.e. well before the introduction of the Scheme of N.F.U. from Pay-Level-8 to Pay Level-9, which had been notified for the I.A.&A.D. vide the C.&A.G. H.O. Letter dated 09.07.2018 to be effective from 01.01.2016, inter alia with the specific condition that it shall be admissible to the A.A.O.s on completion of 04 years of regular service .
11. Also, the Applicants vide the present O.A. had also sought to rely upon the Judgment & Order dated 14.12.1999 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5363-64 of 1997 (S.I. Rooplal & 9 OA No.789/2019 Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi [JT 1999 (9) SC 597] - citing inter alia the observations that -
"any rule, regulation or executive instructions which has the effect of taking away the rights of any employee and deprivation of their legal rights would be violative of Article-14 and 16of the Constitution. Hence, liable to be struck down."
The Respondents had contended that the cited aspects of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court were not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present O.A. No.789/2019.
12. Further, at the stage of arguments, the learned Counsel for the Respondents had presented that the Hon'ble Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.260/301/2022 (Ashutosh Das Vs. UOI & Ors.) and the O.A. No.260/560/2022 (Ranjan Kumar Sahoo Vs. UOI & Ors.)had dealt with the same issue of whether the N.F.U. from Pay-Level-8 to Pay Level-9 shall be admissible on completion of 04 years of regular service or whether it shall also be admissible to the A.A.O.s (Ad-hoc/R.T.) on completion of 04 years of their ad- hoc/temporary service. The Orders dated 14.11.2024 and dated 29.04.2025 respectivelyin the said O.A.shad been taken on record. Thereby, it emerged that the said issue had been examined in the O.A. No.753/2019 (Hema T.M. & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors.) of the Hon'ble Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal - which itself had gone into the same issue at length. Hence, the Order dated 12.04.2024 in the said O.A. No.753/2019 had also been adverted to ; whereupon it was found to have placed reliance on the authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgments and Orders and the related D.O.P.&T. O.M. dated 14.09.2022 regarding grant of N.F.U. to A.A.O.(Ad-hoc) in I.A.&A.D. in context of facts and circumstances thereof and had in conclusion dismissed the said O.A.
13. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties carefully and also perused the documents/annexures thereto. The Orders in the cases cited by the parties, including the Hon'ble Rajasthan High 10 OA No.789/2019 Court, Jaipur Order dated 25.04.2012 in the D.B. C.W.P. No.7850/2011 and the Orders of the Hon'ble Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal in the O.A. No.301/2022 and O.A. No.560/2022 vide Orders dated 14.11.2024 and dated 29.04.2025 respectively, which had considered the extensive examination of the related issues vide O.A. No.753/2009 (Hema T.M. & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors.) before the Hon'ble Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal and theauthority of the Judgements/Orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited therein. The arguments of learned Counsels for the parties had also been heard.
14. In the context of foregoing facts and pleadings of the parties, it would emerge that apart from the existing sanctioned permanent A.A.O. posts in the respondent Department i.e. I.A.&A.D., the circular dated 25.03.2009 was issued for introduction of the Scheme for regularization of existing S.O.(Ad-hoc) and promotion of wait-listed S.O.G.E. passed officials as S.O.(Ad-hoc). According to the said Scheme, the post of S.O.(Ad-hoc) got renamed as A.A.O.(R.T.), whereas the wait-listed S.O.G.E. passed officials got promoted on ad-hoc basis as A.A.O.(Ad-hoc) - for which the C.A.&G. H.O. had sanctioned39 posts of A.A.O.(R.T.) and 56 posts of A.A.O.(Ad-hoc) specifically for the I.A.&A.D. establishment under the A.G.(A.&E.) Rajasthan, Jaipur, to which the present Applicants had belonged. Also in pursuance, an equal number of posts of Sr. Accountant/Accountant were kept in abeyance for these two dispensations ; and since the number of existing Sections had not been increased, so such A.A.O.(Ad-hoc/R.T.) were not given any supervisory responsibilities or independent charge of any Section, which already were assigned to regular A.A.O.s only. Such A.A.O.(Ad-hoc/R.T.)were required to discharge the same functions and duties as discharged by Sr. Accountants and Accountants, i.e. the posts from which they were appointed as A.A.O.(Ad-hoc/R.T.). 11 OA No.789/2019
15. Therefore, it was found that in the I.A.&A.D. establishment under the A.G.(A&E) Rajasthan, there came to be distinct categories of employees designated as A.A.O.in pursuance to C&AG HO Circular dated 25.03.2009, which for expedience and understanding we would mention as -
Category-I : viz., regular A.A.O.s who were already occupying permanent posts, having been appointed through regular selection/promotion procedure;
Category-II : viz., employees who had previously been selected/promoted as SO(Ad-hoc) through a regular D.P.C. procedure, who were then designated as A.A.O.(R.T.)pursuant to Letter dated 08.07.2009 inter alia for sanction of 39 such posts ; & Category-III : viz., employees selected/promoted on ad-hoc basis as A.A.O. (Ad-hoc) pursuant to Letter dated 08.07.2009 inter alia for sanction of 56 such posts.
Another aspect of differentiation amongst the afore-said categories would be on the basis of the functions assigned. It emerged from the submissions by the Respondents that the regular A.A.O.s were assigned to head the Sections in Offices under the establishment of A.G.(A.&E.) and functioned in a supervisory capacity ; whereas the A.A.O.(R.T.) or A.A.O.(Ad-hoc) were not performing the supervisory functions as regular A.A.O. since no new sections had been created for them to be given charge of independently - and they continued to discharge the same functions and duties of their previous post of Accountants/Sr. Accountants.
Thus, it was foundthat there were reasonable and relevant bases for differential treatment of the officers appointed to A.A.O. level posts - either as regular A.A.O. [i.e. Category-I] or as A.A.O.(R.T.) [i.e. Category-II] or A.A.O.(Ad-hoc) i.e. Category-III].In consequence, the Respondents as the employer were also authorized to distinguish between the nature of assignments as 12 OA No.789/2019 well as the benefits in lieu of the respective services of each of such categories, which cannot be termed to be arbitrary or illegal.
16. Further, it emerged that for the financial up-gradation under the applicable Scheme for M.A.C.P.accorded to the A.A.O.s, the service tenurewithout promotion/financial upgradation was reckoned based on the total length of service across the A.A.O. categories - to redress prolonged stagnation due to non- promotion/financial upgradation. However, the grant of N.F.U. from Level-8 to Level-9 had been made to mitigate morale and inter-service disparity, but had made it contingent upon meeting related performance benchmarks - for which the condition of regular services of 04 years as A.A.O.s in Level-8, i.e. as heads of the office Sections in supervisory capacity - had been prescribed. Thus, it emerged that while a specific regime had been prescribed for reckoning of services towards the grant of the benefit of M.A.C.P. to redress stagnation, another regime had been prescribed for reckoning the services towards grant of the benefit of N.F.U. from Level-8 to the Level-9 to address morale and inter- service disparity issues. We found those to be reasonable and justifiable grounds for making such distinction between grant of M.A.C.P. benefits and that for the grant of benefits of N.F.U. from Level-8 to Level-9 - which could not be termed as illegal per se because different types of financial benefits could be considered/provided in lieu of respective services ; and it was not necessary that every benefit be provided for or implemented in identical manner across the aforesaid categories.
17. We had also perused the authority of the various decided cases of Courts/Tribunal as presented before us. A reference to the Order dated 25.04.2012 of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur in the D.B. C.W.P. No.7850/2011, showed its concluding/operative part to be inter alia as follows - 13 OA No.789/2019
"9. From the above letter, it is clear that officials regularized against regular temporary posts of A.A.O. or promoted as A.A.O.(Ad-hoc) were classified as Group 'B' Gazetted for all purpose. The words "for all purpose"
used by the respondents in the above letter, make it clear that all A.A.O.s' promoted as Ad-hoc or regular temporary basis, were treated as one group i.e. Group 'B' Gazetted for all purpose.
10. In these circumstances, we find that action of respondents in not allowing the members of petitioner-Association to appear in competitive examination of 2011, was not legal. The members of petitioner-Association, who were holding the posts of A.A.O.(Ad-hoc) as promotee, were also eligible to appear in the Incentive Examinations of 2011.
11. In view of above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, are quashed and set aside. Impugned Order dated 30.03.2022 passed by respondents is also set aside. Petitioners are held eligible to appear in the A.A.O.s' Incentive Examination of 2011. The members of petitioner- Association were provisionally allowed to appear in the said examination by the interim order of this Court dated 07.06.2011, therefore, respondents are now directed to declare their result forthwith. ... ... ." It would thus emerge that the said matter was related to and decided upon the specific substantive issue of eligibility for appearing at the Incentive Examination for 2011, for which the A.A.O.(R.T.) [i.e. Category-II] and A.A.O.(Ad-hoc) [i.e. Category- III] were decided to be as belonging to one group. Also, the same got decided in 2012, i.e. well before the introduction of the Scheme of N.F.U. from Pay-Level-8 to Pay Level-9, which had been notified for the I.A.&A.D. vide the C.&A.G. H.O. Letter dated 09.07.2018 ; and thus, it neither could have covered the same issue nor was the same issue actually covered by it in any way. Moreover, the compliance by the Respondents to the said decision - pertaining to the eligibility to appear at the Incentive Examination for 2011 of the A.A.O. (Ad-hoc) [i.e. Category-III] to be at par with that of the A.A.O. (R.T.) [i.e. Category-II] - was not found to be of any help towards grant of N.F.U.as allowed to appointees as regular A.A.O. [i.e. Category-I] also to the A.A.O.(Ad-hoc) [i.e. Category-III] Applicants in the present case.
18. We had also adverted to the Judgment & Order dated 14.12.1999 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.I. 14 OA No.789/2019 Rooplal & Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi (supra) as was relied upon by the Applicants. The relevant para of the same as extracted / abridged by the Applicants while citing it in the O.A. was found upon being read in full,to be as follows -
"It is clear from the ratio laid down in the above case that any Rule, Regulation or Executive Instruction which has the effect of taking away the service rendered by a deputationist in an equivalent cadre in the parent department while counting his seniority in the deputed post would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Hence, liable to be struck down. Since the impugned Memorandum in its entirety does not take away the above right of the deputationists and by striking down the offending part of the Memorandum, as has been prayed in the writ petition, the rights of the appellants could be preserved, we agree with the prayer of the petitioners/ appellants and the offending words in the Memorandum "whichever is later" are held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, hence, those words are quashed from the text of the impugned Memorandum. Consequently, the right of the petitioners/appellants to count their service from the date of their regular appointment in the post of Sub-Inspector in BSF, while computing their seniority in the cadre of Sub- Inspector (Executive) in the Delhi Police, is restored."
It clearly emerged from the same that the said Judgment and Order had been rendered in a case of determination of seniority for Sub-Inspectors, who were absorbed in the Delhi Police after having served there on deputation from the Border Security Force (B.S.F.) ; and it had been held thereby that their seniority was required to be determined by accounting for their previous substantive service in the B.S.F., from the date of their regular appointment therein.
19. The learned Counsel for the Respondents had argued that it clearly emerged from the said Judgment & Order that it had protected the right to count the regular substantive service rendered by a deputationist in an equivalent cadre in the parent department at the time of determination of his seniority in the deputed post ; whereas the Applicants in the present O.A. were not holders of the post of A.A.O. on a regular basis,but had worked as A.A.O.(Ad-hoc) - without rendering the services substantively for any supervisory responsibilities or in an independent charge of any Section, which already were assigned to regular A.A.O.s only. 15 OA No.789/2019 Hence, they were shown to not have discharged the services of A.A.O. on a regular or substantive basis, but had instead performed the duties and responsibilities as discharged by Sr. Accountants and Accountants, i.e. the posts from which they had been appointed as A.A.O.(Ad-hoc/R.T.). Thus, the written submission that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the cited aspects of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court were not applicable had been reiterated.
Hence, we found that in the facts and circumstances of the present case of the Applicants, they were clearly found to have worked as A.A.O.(Ad-hoc) which was substantively different from the work and responsibilities of regular A.A.O.s - hence, the authority of the Judgment & Order dated 14.12.1999 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.I. Rooplal & Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi (supra) as was sought to be relied upon by the Applicants would not help their case vide the present O.A.
20. Moreover, upon adverting to and perusing the Order dated 12.04.2024 in the O.A. No.753/2019 (Hema T.M. & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors.) of the Hon'ble Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal - which itself had gone into relevant aspects at length and placed reliance on the authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgments/Orders -on issues related to the consideration of N.F.U. to A.A.O.(Ad-hoc/R.T.) in a case similar to the case of the Applicants vide the present O.A., it was foundinter alia as follows -
(i) Firstly, regarding the competence of the C.&A.G. to issue instructions relating to matters of service of persons serving in his Department - in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Amrik Singh & Ors. [1994 (1) SCC 269], which itself had relied on the Accountant General Vs. S. Doraiswamy [AIR 1981 SC 783], it was held that the C.&A.G. had the necessary competence to issue Departmental Instructions on matters of service of persons serving in his Department as its head, even after rules are made by the President on conditions of service of such 16 OA No.789/2019 persons, subject to that administrative instructions in matters relating to conditions of service cannot prevail over the Rules issued by the President under Clause(5) of the Article 148 of the Constitution. Based on the same, it was claimed that the C.&A.G. had the ability and competence to make required arrangement and issue instructions in relation to terms and conditions of lower level staff working under him, including creation of the position of A.A.O. (Ad-hoc/R.T.) as a temporary measure for the specific purpose of providing more promotional scope for those working for long periods in the lower posts.
(ii) Secondly, regarding the implication of the expression 'on a regular basis' - in K.Madhavan & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [1987 (4) SCC 566] it had been held that the expression 'on a regular basis' would mean the appointment to the post on a regular basis in contra- distinction to appointment on an ad-hoc/stop-gap or purely temporary basis ; and similarly in Union of India & Ors. Vs. K.B. Rajoria [2000 (3) SCC 562], it had been held that the High Court had erred in construing the words 'regular service in the grade' as actual physical service ; if that were so then an ad-hoc appointee who actually served in a post could also claim to be qualified to be considered for the post of Director General of the C.P.W.D. in the matter therein ; and the word regular does not mean actual. Based on the same, it was claimed that the rules for N.F.U. clearly provided that there has to be 04 years regular service in the Grade-Pay/Pay-Level concerned for the N.F.U. to be granted to the next Grade-Pay/Pay-Level.
(iii) Thirdly, regarding distinction between regular service vis-a- vis ad-hoc/work-charged/temporary service - in Parmod Kumar Vs. State of Haryana [2018 (0) Supreme (P&H) 4495], it had been held that the petitioners were not entitled to count their period of ad- hoc/work charged/temporary service towards seniority in the cadre before the date they were regularized and became members of service for the first time in terms of the relevant policies of state Government. Further, in Anand Purohit Vs. Union of India & Ors. in O.A. No.1010/2010before the Hon'ble Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal, it had been held that although 'regular service' had not been specifically defined in the Fundamental Rules, there was still no reason to accept ad-hoc service as regular service, as otherwise, there would have been no need to make a separate mention about ad-hoc promotion in F.R.- 22 and other rules under the F.R. Hence, drawing from the same, the 17 OA No.789/2019 Hon'ble Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal while observing that the approved Scheme for grant of a higher Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- by way of N.F.U. specifically mentioned that only those officers were eligible, who had completed four years regular service as an Income Tax Officer ; and thus the qualifying four year period was held to be reckonable from the date of regular promotion and not from the date of ad-hoc promotion.
21. It further shown in the hearing before us from the documents presented by learned Counsel for Respondents thatwere also taken on record, that while relying upon the Order dated 12.04.2024 in O.A. No.753/2019 (Hema T.M. & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors.) of Hon'ble Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal, the Hon'ble Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal observed vide Order dated 14.11.2024 in OA No.301/2022 (Ashutosh Das Vs. UOI & Ors.) that -
"7. Add to the above, it may be recorded that it was specifically decided by the competent authority that only four years "regular" service is to be counted for grant of N.F.U., as a matter of policy, and self-restraint by the Tribunal in such policy matter is mandated by law. Accordingly we see no ground to take a different view than the view already taken by the Ernakulam Bench, especially, in view of the well settled proposition of law that the precedents which enunciate rules of law form the foundation of administration of justice under judicial system as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SI Rooplal and another (supra).
On examination, we find that not only the applicants before the Ernakulam Bench but also the present applicant belong to the same department and same cadre, the foundation led in both the cases are also same and similar leaving no scope for this Bench in the present case to take a different view than the view already taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal. Therefore, since the Ernakulam Bench after analyzing and answering all the points dismissed the OA, we do not find any justifiable reason to restate the same discussions herein again."
Moreover, the Hon'ble Cuttack Bench had similarly observed vide Order dated 29.04.2025 in OA No.560/2022 (Ranjan Kumar Sahoo Vs. UOI & Ors.) that -
"7. In this case, no material has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant that orders referred to above have been set aside by any higher forum or reviewed by this Tribunal. No such new material has been brought to our notice by the applicant to take a different view than the view taken in earlier cases referred to above."18 OA No.789/2019
On such examination, the Hon'ble Cuttack Bench had found no merits in the O.A.s No.301/2022 (Ashutosh Das Vs. UOI & Ors.) and No.560/2022 (Ranjan Kumar Sahoo Vs. UOI & Ors.)also ; and had accordingly dismissed those.
22. In addition to the examination as foregoing of the various Court cases cited and relied upon by the parties, we had also adverted to the statutory provisions relating to the present matter.At the outset, we noted that it was a settled position that the statutory rules would prevail and must be strictly adhered to and if the law requires something to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner. The relevant statutory provisions in the present case had been incorporated relevantly at first in the C.A.&G. H.O. Circular dated 25.03.2009 whereby the Scheme inter alia for Accountants/Sr. Accountants who had passed the S.O.G.E. and were awaiting promotion, to be promoted as A.A.O.(Ad-hoc) had been circulated - inter-alia prescribing that such officials would continue to perform the work of Sr. Accountants or Accountants. i.e. the posts from which they had been appointed ; and secondly, in the C.&A.G. H.O. Letter dated 09.07.2018 on the subject 'Implementation of recommendations of 7th CPC - para 11.12.140 - Grant of grade pay Rs.5400/- (PB-2) i.e. Pay Level-9 of Pay Matrix in case of Assistant Accounts Officers/Assistant Audit Officers in I.A.&A.D." - which had statedly been issued in accordance with the relevant Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure O.M. dated 18.06.2018, subsequent clarification vide O.M. dated 27.06.2018 and Para-10 of Government Resolution dated 25.07.2016.
It was provided thereby that the pay of A.A.O.s in I.A.&A.D. under revised pay structure of C.P.C.-VII w.e.f. 01.01.2016 would be in Level-8 of Pay Matrix ; and in Level-9 on completion of 04 years in G.P. Rs.4800/-(PB-2)/Level-8, as per the terms and conditions inter alia that grant of N.F.U. in Pay Level-9 shall be admissible to the 19 OA No.789/2019 A.A.O.s of I.A.&A.D. on completion of 04 years of regular service in the cadre from the date of joining as A.A.O. It had been clarified/reiterated vide Letter dated 05.09.2018 of the C.&A.G. H.O. that only service rendered from appointment as regular S.O./A.A.O. was reckonable for computing 04 years accordingly.
23. Further, the position in regard to facts, circumstances and guidelines/O.M. etc. related to grant of N.F.U. to A.A.O.(Ad-hoc) under the establishment of C.&A.G. had also been examined vide Order dated 12.04.2024 in the O.A. No.753/2019 (Hema T.M. & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors.)(supra) of the Hon'ble Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal, which was shown to inter alia incorporate/conclude that -
"29. Learned counsel for the respondents also drew attention to an Office Memorandum (O.M.) of the Department of Personnel & Training No:F.No.5/4/2005-CS.I(S) dated 14.09.2022 which was in relation to grant of Non-Functional Scale to Section Officers of Central Secretariat Service and Central Secretariat Stenographers Service. This had indicated, inter alia, as follows : "... ... It is reiterated that in terms of FR 17(1), Section Officers of CSS cadre appointed to the aforesaid grade from CSSS cadre i.e., PS (Adhoc/regular), were not holding the post of Section Officer as on the date of grant of NFS i.e., 01.07.2019, but were officers of CSSS holding the post of PA/PS (Adhoc). Hence, the actual financial benefit is not admissible to them from 01.07.2019 but is admissible to them from the date of their assumption of the charge of the post of Section Officer on regular basis." In addition, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the matter was part of the discussions held on 16.09.2019 by the Dy.C&AG (HR & Training) with the office bearers of the All India Audit & Accounts Association. It appears that in relation to the demand for grant of NFU to Level 9 to adhoc AAOs, it was responded as : "SAS is the qualifying examination for promotion as AAO. In some field offices especially in A&E offices sufficient vacancies are not available for granting promotion to the SAS qualified personnel. The RT/Adhoc posts were created to encourage the SAS qualified staff waiting for promotion as AAOs. The AAO (Adhoc/RT) continue to perform the work of the posts, from which the official was appointed as AAO (RT/Adhoc). Such officials are not regular AAOs. Hence granting of NFU is not possible. The benefits of financial upgradation under ACP/MACP are however permissible to AAO (Adhoc/RT). This agenda item may be treated as closed."
30. It is thus contended that in terms of the DoP&T O.M. above, as well as the results of the discussion with the I.A.&A.D. Association, it has been fairly well accepted by the Government as well as by the I.A.&A.D. that the matter of granting NFU to AAOs holding (Adhoc/RT) positions is not possible. In fact, the matter is to be treated as closed. We examined the issues carefully. We must note that the above detailed contentions made by t he respondents both in their reply statements and in the oral submissions were not effectively countered by the applicants. It is specifically the issue 20 OA No.789/2019 raised by the respondents that Adhoc/RT services of the applicants cannot be counted as regular service,, both by way of established judicial precedents or even as is generally understood, however much the applicants contend that they were doing similar work as regular AAOs and, in some cases, even work of supervisory nature, Just performing additional or supervisory duties does not prove that the applicants were in regular service. What is required by the NFU Scheme is to be in regular service and that is the main criteria before the grant of upgradation to Rs.5400/- Grade Pay/Pay Lebvel-9 in the Pay Matrix on completion of 4 years in the Lower Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-. This is clearly a settled matter for the DoP&T, which is in charge of the establishment issues of the Government of India. It appears settled in the C&AG as well, as evidenced by the record note of discussion with the employees association as above. In any case, the respondents have provided more than enoughmaterial in their reply statement in relation to the powers of C&AG to establish that the 1st respondent (C&AG) has full powers in relation to creation of temporary posts or the effective management of the cadre under him. Thus, we agree that a temporary measure which was effected in order to provide some opportunities to the staff who had passed the required qualifying examination, but had been waiting for years together without promotion cannot be held to establish grant of further benefits.
31. We have also noted that a process has been undertaken by the respondents to provide a channel of movement from the lower level first by upgrading the posts to the position of Aao (Adhoc) and then further to the position of AAO (RT) and to final regularization as AAO. Such a process cannot be held to be identical or even similar to the process of regular promotion/appointment to the post of AAO. These are completely two different processes which cannot be confused with each other. Further, even if there may be some overlap in terms of duties and responsibilities between AAOs (regular) and AAOs (Adhoc/RT) that cannot be held as sufficient as we have seen. It is not that this is a simple matter of 'equal pay for equal work' as is being sought to be established by the applicants. There was a specific contention by the respondents as we have seen that the purposes behind these positions were different and that one cannot be confused with the other, however much the nomenclature or even duties are the same. Further, they have contended that there has been no change in the number of posts within the cadre as a whole. In sum, we are in agreement with the detailed contentions made by the respondents in this O.A.
32. Thus, in view of all the above considerations and in light of the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court brought out earlier, we are unable to accept the contentions made by the applicants. The O.A. is accordingly dismissed. ... ..."
24. We found that the ratio of the said Order dated 12.04.2024 in the O.A. No.753/2019 (Hema T.M. & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors.) (supra) of the Hon'ble Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal was squarely applicable in the case of the Applicants in the present O.A. before us also - since the Applicants were admittedly working similarly in the posts of A.A.O.(Ad-hoc/R.T.) as distinct from that of 21 OA No.789/2019 A.A.O.(regular) ; and even more, they had not contested that they had continued to perform the work of Sr. Accountants or Accountants, i.e. the posts from which they had been appointed. Hence, we are inclined to rely on the ratio of the said Order dated 12.04.2024 in the O.A. No.753/2019 (Hema T.M. & Ors. Vs UOI &Ors.) (supra) of the Hon'ble Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunalwhile deciding the present O.A. Secondly, it was also not shown that the afore-said O.M.s and Circulars/Letters of Respondents, viz., - C.A.&G. H.O. Circular dated 25.03.2009 circulating the Scheme inter alia for Accountants and Sr.Accountants who were awaiting promotion after having passed the S.O.G.E. to be promoted as A.A.O.(Ad-hoc) ; C.&A.G. H.O. Letter dated 09.07.2018 on the subject 'Implementation of recommendations of 7th CPC - para 11.12.140 - Grant of grade pay Rs.5400/- (PB-2) i.e. Pay Level-9 of Pay Matrix in case of Assistant Accounts Officers/Assistant Audit Officers in I.A.&A.D." or the clarification regarding the same vide 05.09.2018 - were stayed or quashed in any way ; moreover, no relief was sought against any of those by the Applicants vide the present O.A. Thirdly. we had also found inter alia - that although representations had been made between (12.10.2018 to 30.10.2018)by the Applicants for consideration of services rendered as A.A.O. (Ad-hoc/R.T.) after completion of 04 years in the grade as such for the purpose of granting N.F.U. to Level-9 ; that those representations had been forwarded vide the Letter dated 20.11.2018 of the Office of Principal A.G.(A&E), Rajasthan, Jaipur, to the Office of the C.&A.G. ; and that those had eventually been disposed of vide the impugned Letter dated 09.01.2014 by the Office of the C.&A.G. - it was also a settled position that multiple representations by the Applicants and/or disposal of those by the Respondents would not create any entitlement or primary cause of action in favour of the Applicants in any way.
22OA No.789/2019 Therefore, in light of each of the afore-said,the grant of N.F.U. upon completion of 04 years of regular service as A.A.O. and denying the benefit of N.F.U. to A.A.O.(Ad-hoc), inter alia the Applicants in the present O.A., was found to be as per the relevant O.M.s notifying and clarifying the Schemes/guidelines ; and were also legal thus.
25. In the conspectus of all of the foregoing, we hold that the Applicants had failed to establish their claim to be allowed the benefit of N.F.U. from Level-8 to Level-9 upon rendering 04 years of service as A.A.O. (Ad-hoc/R.T.) ; and had also failed to show as to how the basis of making distinctions in respect of grant of N.F.U. from Level-8 to Level-9 for the different categories of employees working in the designated posts of A.A.O. on regular basis [i.e. Category-I] vis-à-vis those working as A.A.O.(R.T.) [i.e. Category- II] or A.A.O.(Ad-hoc) [i.e. Category-III] on ad-hoc basis was impermissible or violative of any position in law. We also do not find that the aforesaid actions/orders of the respondents had suffered from any arbitrariness or infirmity ; and thus, those cannot be said to be illegal.
26. Therefore, the present O.A. is found to fail; and no interference with the impugned actions/orders of the respondents had been necessitated. Accordingly, we hold the same.
27. Hence, the present O.A. stands dismissed. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall also be disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
(Lok Ranjan) (Ranjana Shahi) Member (A) Member (J) /ysm/