Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vinod Sharma vs M/O Home Affairs on 17 April, 2023
1
OA No. 1090/2021
Item No. 37
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1090/2021
M.A. No. 1340/2021
This the 17th day of April, 2023
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
1. Vinod Sharma, age-51, FO (Armr) Group - B
s/o Sh. Shiv Dutt
r/o Vill. & P.O. Kandoli Nagrota
Jammu-181221 (J&K)
Presently posted at:
SHQ (SPL-OPS), Shashatra Seema Bal,
(Jammu)
2. Raghubans Singh, age-52, FO (Armr) Group -B
s/o Late Sh. Lal Singh
r/o Vill & P.O. Mandi Sangwali,
Teh.& Distt. Samba-184121
(Jammu & Kashmir)
Presently posted at:
CSD&W, Shashatra Seema Bal
Salonibari (Assam)
3. Shiv Narayan Sharma, age-53, DFO (Armr) Group - B
s/o Late Sh. Govind Ram
r/o Vill & PO. Dholipal
Distt. Hanuman Garh-335064
(Rajasthan)
Presently posted at:
RTC, Shashatra Seema Bal,
Alwar (Rajasthan)
4. Budhi Singh, age-53, DFO (Armr) Group - B
s/o Late Sh. Dharam Singh
r/o Vill Kabar P.O. Dhrun Baneta,
Teh. Sihunta, Distt. Chamba-176207
(Himachal Pradesh)
2
OA No. 1090/2021
Item No. 37
Presently posted at:
CSD&W, Shashatra Seema Bal,
Bhopal (M.P.)
5. Shyam Sunder, age-53, DFO (Armr) Group - B
s/o Late Sh. Parkash Chand
r/o Village & P.O. Bhatiwala
Distt. Sri Ganganagar-335701
(Rajasthan)
Presently posted at:
CSD&W, Shashatra Seema Bal,
Salonibari (Assam)
6. Devender Singh, age-49, AFO (Armr) Group - C
s/o Late Sh. Sukh Ram
r/o Vill Deothi, P.O. Sari
Teh.Chopal, Distt. Shimla-171226
(Himachal Pradesh)
Presently posted at:
SHQ, Shashatra Seema Bal,
Gorakhpur (U.P.)
7. Satinder Kumar, age-49, AFO (Armr) Group-C
s/o Late Sh. Bisheshwar Lal
r/o VILL. & P.O. Panchrukhi
Tehsil Palampur, Distt. Kangra-176103
(Himachal Pradesh)
Presently posted at:
Shashatra Seema Bal Academy,
Bhopal (M.P.)
8. Vinod Negi, age-45, AFO (Armr) Group-C
s/o Sh. R.C.S. Negi
r/o Villae Sitabpur, PO Kotdwar
Distt. Pauri Garhwal-246149
(Uttrakhand)
Presently posted at:
RTC, Shashatra Seema Bal,
Srinagar (Uttarakhand)
9. Ashok Kumar Sati, age-45, AFO (Armr) Group - C
s/o Sh. Ravi Dutt Sati
r/o Vill & Post Ganai (Bantra)
Teh. Joshimath, Distt. Chamoli Garhwal
3
OA No. 1090/2021
Item No. 37
Presently posted at:
CI&JW School, Shashatra Seema Bal,
Gwaldam, (Uttarakhand)
10. Ram Kumar Vishwakarma, age-53,
AFO (Armr) Group - C
s/o Late Sh. Dindayal Vishwakarma
r/o Vill. & P.O. Azad Nagar Bhattagaon
Distt. Jhansi-284127
(U.P.)
Presently posted at:
SHQ, Shashatra Seema Bal,
Gorakhpur (U.P.)
...Applicants
(By Advocates : Ms. Usha Pandey with
Mr. Vedant Kulshvestha)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Secretary Home
Ministry of Home Affairs
North Block, New Delhi
2. Cabinet Secretariat,
Through Cabinet Secretary
Government of India,
Rashtrapati Bhawan
New Delhi-110004
India
3. Director General
Shashatra Seema Bal
East Block V, R.K. Puram
New Delhi
4. I.G. Personnel
Sashatra Seema Bal
East Block V, R.K. Puram
New Delhi
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar)
4
OA No. 1090/2021
Item No. 37
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A) The present Original Application has been filed by the applicants because of the non-action of the respondents to the request of the applicants vide order dated 10.04.2019 and 11.07.2019 for considering and including the applicants in appropriate Civilian service all over India. As the OA has not been signed by other applicants, the present OA is treated as filed by Applicant No. 1, i.e., Sh. Vinod Sharma.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Sh. Vinod Sharma, present applicant and others mentioned in the OA were appointed under the Cabinet Secretariat in the erstwhile SSB. They were deployed to SSB under the direct control of Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). In the year 2001, options were sought from various employees of SSB to be combatised or to remain civilian. In the 2007, when the Seema Shasatra Bal Act came into force, the personnels who opted for combatised force, were governed by the SSB Act and Rules 2007. The applicant and similarly placed employees remained as a civil staff in Seema Shasastra Bal. The applicant and similarly placed employees were posted in Battalions of combatised setup for performing civilian duties. Some civilian employees filed in O.A. No. 147/2010 titled R K Saha & Ors. Vs Union of India as well as O.A. No. 111/2011 titled Bipin Bohra Vs Union of India & Ors. and 5 OA No. 1090/2021 Item No. 37 subsequently, a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, challenging this order in respect of this OA.
3. In compliance of the Orders in these OAs and the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, the Competent Authority ordered that non-combatised personnel shall remain posted in Battalions. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. (C) CC 9270/2012 dated 03.07.2012. The respondents vide order dated 20.12.2012 decided to continue 2765 non-combatised force of various cadres as per the existing terms and conditions of relevant recruitment Rules. In the year 2015, some civilian non- combatised employees filed O.A. No. 1754/2015 where the Tribunal passed order dated 23.07.2015 to consider the grievances of the applicants therein. The aggrieved persons went to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P(C) No. 940/2016, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 15.10.2018 observed the following:-
"Once an employee or officer is given an option and he chooses it, its logical consequences have to be followed. SSB stated position is that it does not have a non-combatised cadre. This would mean that those officers who did not opt for combatisation had to be posted elsewhere-possibly even outside SSB. The judgments of Kolkata and Allahabad High Courts precisely directed that i.e. posting of non-combatised personnels outside of SSB by the Central Government."
4. The present applicant and the similarly placed employees made a representation dated 10.04.2019 and again on 29.01.2021 requesting the respondents to opt them regarding 6 OA No. 1090/2021 Item No. 37 their transfer to the civil organization. Despite several representations by the applicant and the similarly placed employees, the respondents have not finally considered their representation. Being aggrieved they have filed the present OA seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) direct the respondents to transfer the applicants to the civil organization i.e. Intelligence Bureau (L.B.) for which options were already sought from the applicants by the respondents; and
(b) direct the respondents to absorb or adjust the applicants to any other civil organization after seeking options from the applicants; and
(c) extend the benefits of judgment of Hon'ble High Court at Kolkata (ibid); and/or
(d) grant any other or further relief as per the facts and circumstances of the case."
5. The applicants have forwarded the following grounds in support of the reliefs sought from the Tribunal:-
(i) Shastra Seema Bal (SSB) is a fully combatised force. The applicants being civilian should have been transferred to any other civilian organization by the respondents on their own.
(ii) Erstwhile Special Service Bureau (SSB) gave options to the personnels/employees to give their choice whether to be transferred to civil organization from the present combatised setup of SSB. However, vide order dated 12.10.2018, without assigning the specific reasons, they chose not to transfer the applicants to civil organization while effecting such transfers to other employees.7 OA No. 1090/2021 Item No. 37
(iii) The respondents are depriving the applicants from the benefits which combatised personnels are being granted at the same place of a posting including grant of a security allowance, ration money etc. However, the applicants are posted in Battalions even though the respondents are not providing the perks and benefits applicable to combatised forces.
(iv) The respondents cannot compel the applicants to work in a combatised setup without their willingness, specially when options were sought by the applicants and it was decided that the entire civil wing working at present SSB shall be transferred to other civil organizations.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents averts that the present OA suffers from the following technical grounds:-
(i) The present applicants apart from Sh. Vinod Sharma, Applicant no. 1, have not signed the OA though they have given their Vakalatnama in favor of the counsel for the applicants. On this technical ground, the present OA needs to be dismissed.
(ii) The applicants have sought reliefs to be posted in civil organization like IB, however, IB has not been made a party in the present OA. In view of this, the present OA suffers from non-joinder of the appropriate parties.8 OA No. 1090/2021 Item No. 37
7. Learned counsel for the respondents drew attention of the Tribunal to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, particularly paras 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit, which are reproduced below:-
"4. It is humbly submitted that the applicants do not have any inherent right to be posted with the Intelligence Bureau and that it is the policy decision of the Govt. to post the applicants in one Civil organization or the other or to retain them in the present dispensation. The Govt after considering the JIC Report decided to shift the 19 non- combatised cadre along with the posts from SSB to IB. As far as the applicants are concerned, they continue to work with the organizations on non-combatised posts. The transfer of the cadre from one organization to another is a policy decision and that the applicants are availing applicable service benefits as per their entitlements and admissibility. The applicants are working in the various posts in Armourer cadre and as such, the duties performed by them have no work or entitlement to be posted in the IB. It is the decision of the Government to retain the applicants in the SSB as the work being performed by the applicants and similarly placed persons is best suited to the organization. The applicants have no experience or the work being performed by them have no application whatsoever in the IB and nor they have the desired training for the same.
5. That it is submitted that all non-combatised staff in SSB are not posted to any field formation ie at the place where the armed battalions are posted. The combatised personnel are deployed at the Country's borders and also in maintaining law and order duties and other emergency duties in difficult areas in different parts of the Country and for which such personnel are entitled to the said allowances. The non-combatised staff are posted in peaceful areas and thus, cannot be compared to the combatised staff duties and as such, are not entitled to the special allowances being granted to the said personnel. It may also be submitted that as per MHA directions, no recruitment is made against the non-combatised posts from the combatised posts and that the said persons are being promoted to the next higher rank in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and as per available vacancies."
8. He further states that the applicants trained for the kind of work which is not available in civil organizations. The respondents have taken conscious view to retain them in the combatised Battalions of SSB. However, none of the applicant 9 OA No. 1090/2021 Item No. 37 and similarly placed persons are working in the combatised setup and they cannot claim parity with the employees who are working in the field formations or working with the law and order missionary. The applicants are having specialized skills which can only be utilized for the purpose for which they are being presently utilized. The applicants are being granted promotions in accordance with the recruitment Rules subject to availability of vacancies and they are entitled to get MACP benefits in absence of promotional avenues. In view of this, the applicants have no real grievance except that they want parity with the employees who are combatised forces and deployed in field formations.
9. Heard both the learned counsels for the parties carefully and gone through the records of the case thoroughly.
10. The counsel for the respondents has raised objections that only one applicant has signed the OA. In view of this, the present OA may be treated as filed by only Sh. Vinod Sharma, Applicant no. 1. However, the Order which will be passed in this case may be equally applicable to similarly placed employees like Sh. Vinod Sharma, Applicant no. 1. The other technical objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the reliefs sought by the applicants regarding their posting in IB is not tenable as such objection is subject to specific relief prayed by the applicant. It is not that IB shall grant such relief, 10 OA No. 1090/2021 Item No. 37 if such relief is granted, it would be acted upon by respondent no. 1.
11. As regards, the grievance of the present applicant and similarly placed employees, the issue is regarding parity of such employees who are termed as a civilian employees within the combatised Battalions. It may be said that even in Defence forces there are civilian cadres and there are specific recruitment Rules governing their perks, benefits and promotional avenues. Similarly, the para-military forces and the respondents' organization, i.e., SSB require civilian employees in the combatised Battalions and their field formations. The nature of duties performed by each category of employees, civilian and combatised forces, are different. In view of this, seeking parity in perks and allowances including annual leave is not tenable. However, it is admitted by both the learned counsel for the parties that there is no specific recruitment Rules governing the civilian employees or the employees like the Applicant no. 1, who are performing non-combatised duties in combatised forces have been formulated. That is the real grievance by the present applicant and similarly placed employees.
12. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to consider the present OA as representation by the applicant and similarly placed employees and may consider framing 11 OA No. 1090/2021 Item No. 37 appropriate Recruitment and Service Rules, if non-existent at the moment, within the combatised forces so that they may be treated as a separate category of employees performing non- combatised duties in the combatised force of SSB. The respondents are directed to consider this within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
No order as to costs.
(Chhabilendra Roul) Member (A) /aks/