Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Apart from this, enclosure to Annexure A-4 which is by Govt. of India, Ministry of Commerce dated 10.9.95. This order deals with similar cases where two officers of commerce Department by names, Smt. Dhakshayani Ramalingam and Shri V.K. Gopalakrishnan who were Accounts Officers in the zones of Madras and Cochin were sent on deputation where they were absorbed in the regular service of those zones and those posts of Accounts Officers are also isolated posts. In such cases, the Govt. of India has created promotional posts as prayed by this applicant in this case and in pursuance of this OM at Annexure A-1 those officers were directed to be appointed after following due process by following principles of fitness. This letter would clearly show that at that time the Govt. has not taken the objection that because those officers are from isolated posts and did not belong to the organized accounts cadres, they were not entitled. On the other hand, this benefit was given to those officers. In view of enclosure to Anenxure A-4 when the applicant is also similarly placed, we have to hold that he is also entitled for similar consideration by the Government.

11. It was further observed by CAT that the O.M. dated 22nd September, 1992, has a general application to all Organized Accounts Cadres. Its application cannot be restricted only to some specified cadres. The action of the respondents was held to be arbitrary and discriminatory. This would be evident from the following observations in the order of CAT:-

"Annexure A - 4 which is by Govt. of India, Ministry of Commerce dated 10.09.1995, this order deals with similar cases where two officers of Commerce Department by names, Smt. Dhakshayani Ramalingam and Shri. V. K. Gopalakrishnan who were Account Officers in the zones of Madras and Cochin were sent on deputation where they were absorbed in the regular service of those zones and those posts of account officers are also isolated posts. In such cases, the Government of India has created promotional posts as prayed by this applicant in this case and in pursuance of this O. M. at Annexure A1 those officers were directed to be appointed after following due process by following principles of fitness. This letter would clearly show that at that time the Government has not taken the objection that because those officers are from isolated posts and did not belong to the organized accounts cadres, they were not entitled. On the other hand, this benefit was given to those officers. In view of enclosure to Annexure A4 when the applicant is also similarly placed, we have to hold that he is also entitled for similar consideration by the Government."

18. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted before us that the definition of the term `Organized Accounts Cadre' would include the accounts service in CAT. The appellant cannot be denied the benefit merely because he is occupying an isolated post. Learned counsel further pointed out that in a number of cases, even in the case of isolated posts, the respondents have granted the benefit of O.M. dated 22nd September, 1992 to the officers working on such posts. Since the same benefit had been illegally denied to the appellant, the CAT had correctly applied the principle of `equal pay for equal work' and non- discrimination amongst similarly situated employees of Union of India.

25. The Apex Court considered the aforesaid judgment of the High Court of Karnataka and dismissed the appeal against the same filed by the Appellant  Unni Menon. While entirely agreeing with the observations made by the High Court in its judgment, the Apex Court added that the Respondent having lost his lien in the parent department with effect from 26.3.1994 cannot claim the benefit of OM dated 22.9.1992, as by the relevant time, he was borne on the cadre of the Accounts Department of CAT. The Apex Court also rejected the submission of the Appellant that just because he was occupying an isolated post in CAT, he cannot be denied the benefit of OM dated 22.9.1992, as in the case of an isolated post in BSF, similar benefits have been given on the basis of judgment of the Delhi High Court in Union of India Vs. J.R. Chobedar (W.P.C No.20665-67 of 2004 decided on 25.1.2005. On the other hand, the Apex Court held that in terms of Section 13 (2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the salaries and allowances and conditions of service of the officers and other employees of the Tribunal shall be such, as may be specified by rules made by the appropriate government and undoubtedly, the Accounts and Personnel Department is governed by the Recruitment Rules, 1990 framed under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which are independent and self- contained and they could not be intermingled with the Rules of Central Government Departments. The Apex Court has also held that its judgment in State of Mizoram Vs. Mizoram Engg. Service Association (2004) 6 SCC 218 has no application in the case of the appellant as the observations made therein were in the context of the submission that the Engineering Service in the State was not an organized service.