Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. It may further be noticed that the distinction between the „continuation of recognition‟ and „withdrawal‟ needs to be kept in perspective which is Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:3622-DB also implicit from a bare reading of Rule 5&6 of CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993. The condition for recognition of Service Associations does not confer an automatic „continuation of recognition‟ of Service Associations since the „continuation of recognition‟ is further subject to compliance of clauses 6(a) to (l) of the CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993. In the aforesaid context, it is imperative to refer to Rule 6(e) of CCS (RSA) Rules which provides that list of members and office bearers and up-to-date copy of the rules and an audited statement of accounts of the Service Associations shall be furnished to the government annually through proper channel, after the Annual General Meeting, so as to reach the government before the 1st day of July each year. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that „non continuation of the recognition‟ amounts to „withdrawal‟ appears to be misplaced since the „continuation of recognition‟ commences after the period for which recognition is granted is over, whereas the „withdrawal‟ of recognition may take place in the eventualities provided for in Rule 5 or 6 of CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993 during the currency of recognition.

Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:3622-DB

20. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a case of „withdrawal‟ of recognition but the petitioner Association has been treated as „unrecognized‟ since the continuation of recognition of Service Association was dependent upon compliance of Rule 6(e) of CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993 by the Association, which requires the furnishing of a list of members and office bearers and up-to-date copy of the rules and an audited statement of accounts of the Service Association after the Annual General Meeting, so as to reach the government before the 1st day of July each year. Merely because the verification of membership for the purpose of Service Association was to be done by check-off system in pay rolls at such intervals and in the manner as prescribed by the government in Rule 7 of the CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993, does not absolve the petitioner Association of complying with the mandatory provision of Rule 6(e) of the CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993. The stand of the respondents reflected in letter No.4/1/2010 EC-III dated November 21, 2013 may also be beneficially reproduced:-

In the absence of any request for continuation of membership for a period of one year and eight months by the petitioner Association as reflected in the stand taken by the respondents and for want of furnishing of requisite documents by the petitioners, the respondent could not have taken up the continuation of recognition of the petitioner Association.

21. Learned counsel for the petitioners has next contended that the orders for grant/continuation of recognition or withdrawal of recognition could have only been made by the „Government‟ which means the Central Government as per Rule 2(a) of CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993. It is urged that decision for „non continuation of recognition‟ could not have been taken by DG, CPWD in terms of OM No.18/3/2018 dated January 09, 2019 as the Competent Authority remains the Central Government in terms of definition of „Government‟ as per Rule 2(a) of CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993.

22. As per Rule 2(a) of CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993 „Government‟ means the „Central Government‟. Further, Rule 5 of CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993 provides that the Service Associations which fulfil the conditions laid therein may be recognized by the „Government‟. Under Rule 8, the „Government‟ is empowered to withdraw the recognition in case the service associations recognized under the Rules, fail to comply any of the conditions set in Rule Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:3622-DB 5, 6 or 7 of the CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993 after giving any opportunity to the service associations.