Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. Assailing the aforesaid judgment and order dated 29.03.2016 of CAT, Union of India has filed the present writ petition.

16. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.1. Interestingly, instead of himself swearing the affidavit, one Sri Vikas Raj serving as Principal Secretary to the Government of Telangana, General Administration Department has sworn the affidavit. The affidavit, however, does not disclose that he was authorised by respondent No.1 to swear the affidavit for and on his behalf. We fail to understand as to why first respondent himself could not swear his own affidavit. 16.1. Be that as it may, it is submitted that like first respondent, there are many officers working in different capacities in the State of Telangana. They were also allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh following bifurcation. Assailing such allocation, they had filed original applications like the first respondent. Taking note of the fact that the officers were working in the State of Telangana in different capacities, CAT refrained from setting aside the revised allocation only on the ground that it did not want to unsettle things. It is stated that in terms of the judgment and order of CAT, the officers allotted to the Telangana cadre are functioning in highly responsible positions. They are ably assisting the state administration machinery in a very efficient manner on account of their domain expertise and experience. First respondent is working as Chief Secretary to the Government of Telangana. Any interference with the order of CAT would lead to dislocation in the administration besides jeopardising seniority position of the officers. 16.2. It is contended that CAT had examined the record and after thorough consideration of all relevant aspects had passed a reasoned order. No case for interference is made out. Therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed.

Submissions:

17. Sri T.Suryakaran Reddy, learned Senior Counsel and the then Additional Solicitor General has elaborately referred to the impugned judgment and order of CAT. He has also referred to the relevant provisions of the Reorganisation Act. In the course of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel has laid great emphasis on Rule 5(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 as well as Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death- cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. He submits that CAT had erred on facts as well as on law in setting aside the allocation of first respondent to the State of Andhra Pradesh. Compounding the untenability of the aforesaid order, CAT had issued directions to treat the first respondent as an All India Service officer of the State of Telangana with all consequential benefits. Such a direction is completely untenable, he submits. According to him, there could not have been and there is no good reason to declare the guidelines framed by the Central Government on the basis of recommendations of the advisory committee for allocation of officers borne on the cadre of undivided Andhra Pradesh to the two successor States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh as illegal and arbitrary. Though CAT had declared the said guidelines to be contrary to the All India Services Act, 1951, there is no discussion or any analysis as to how there was any such violation. Reliance placed by CAT on the guidelines framed by the Central Government on the basis of the Agarwal committee recommendations to find fault with the guidelines framed by the Central Government on the basis of recommendations of the advisory committee was not at all justified. Guidelines framed by the Central Government on the basis of Agarwal committee recommendations were in relation to division of the State of Uttar Pradesh following the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000. On the other hand, guidelines framed by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendations of the advisory committee were relating to bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh on the basis of the Reorganisation Act. The two cannot be equated factually and contextually. Merely because certain recommendations made by the Agarwal committee does not find place in the impugned guidelines based on the recommendations of the advisory committee would not render the latter illegal and arbitrary.

19. Sri B.S.Prasad, learned Advocate General representing the State of Telangana submits that the judgment and order of CAT is just and proper and should not be interfered with. Respondent No.2 has filed written submissions. It is submitted that State of Telangana had filed a formal counter affidavit before CAT wherein stand taken was that exercise of allocation of officers was within the purview of the Central Government. However, after the allocation exercise was over and following the judgment and order of CAT, first respondent who was directed to be treated as an officer of Telangana, is now serving the State of Telangana as Chief Secretary. He has worked in the State of Telangana for a considerable period contributing to the various developmental activities undertaken by the State. Interfering with the judgment and order of CAT at this stage may unsettle the settled position. State of Andhra Pradesh has expressed no grievance to the allocation of first respondent to the State of Telangana. That being the position, question raised in the writ petition is academic. Therefore, the judgment and order of CAT which is a cogent and a well reasoned one should not be disturbed.

49. This decision of the Supreme Court has been followed in Union of India v. Mhathung Kithan2 and again in G.Srinivas Rao v. Union of India3.

50. We find that while passing the impugned judgment and order CAT had placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in S.Ramanathan v. Union of India4. Question before the Supreme Court in that case was whether the appellants who were State Police Service officers and who were promoted to the Indian Police Service, could maintain a writ petition alleging inaction on the part of the competent authority to have triennial review? Consequential question was whether such inaction would entitle the appellants to have a mandamus from the Court 2 (1996) 10 SCC 562 3 (2011) 8 SCC 123 4 (2001) 2 SCC 118 for review and for reconsideration of their case for promotion to the Indian Police Service from an anterior date. In that case, Tribunal, though came to the conclusion that there was no such triennial review for redetermination of the cadre strength, however declined to issue mandamus. In the above factual backdrop, Supreme Court considered as to what would be the effect of infraction of Rule 4(2) of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, which is pari materia to the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, and what direction can be issued in the event of such infraction. It was noticed that four different benches of CAT had issued directions to the Central Government as well as the State Governments to hold triennial review and reconsider the case of promotion of the concerned State Police Service officers. Those decisions were accepted and implemented by the Central Government as well as by the State Governments without any murmur. Supreme Court considered the language of sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 as it stood prior to its amendment in the year 1995 and held that it required the Central Government to re-examine the strength and composition of each cadre in consultation with the State Government concerned. While acknowledging that an infraction of the aforesaid provision did not confer a vested right upon an officer for requiring the Court to issue any mandamus but at the same time if there has been an infraction and no explanation is forthcoming from the Central Government indicating the circumstances under which the exercise could not be undertaken, the aggrieved party may well approach a Court and the Court in its turn would be well within its jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions depending upon the circumstances of the case. It was in that context, Supreme Court held that when certain power has been conferred upon the Central Government for examining the cadre strength, necessarily the same is coupled with a duty to comply with the requirements of law and any infraction on that score cannot be whittled down on the hypothesis that no vested right of any employee is being jeopardised. Therefore, Supreme Court set aside the order of CAT and directed the Union of India as well as the State Government to reconsider the question of promotion of the state cadre officers to the Indian Police Service on the basis of the re-determined strength of the cadre; if on such reconsideration relief would be available to any of the state cadre officers for promotion to IPS on the basis of the quota available to them in the cadre, the same may be given to them.