Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Creation of new posts/re-designation of Posts in the regular establishment.

The Board noted the position as enumerated in the agenda item and also confirmed the action taken by the CMD from time to time with regard to creation of new posts/re-designation of posts in the regular establishment in the past."

22. The posts which were redesignated (no new posts were created) are mentioned in Appendix-V to the Agenda Note and are as follows :

"STATEMENT SHOWING EXISTING POST WHICH HAVE BEEN REDESIGNATED.

      Sr.  Existing  Month/Year     Redesignated post and scale of pay
     No.  Post      of redesig-    CDA (Rs.)           IDA (Rs.)
                    nation of 
                    post
     1.   xx        xx             xx                  xx
     2.   xx        xx             xx                  xx
     3.   xx        xx             xx                  xx
     4.   xx        xx             xx                  xx
     5.   xx        xx             xx                  xx
     6.   xx        xx             xx                  xx
     7.   Sr.       June, 94       Admn 2200-4000      2500-4300
          Private                  Officer
          Secretary
 
 

23. The contention of learned counsel for the NBCC was that the Office Order dated 1st June, 1994 was validily issued pursuant to the Resolution passed on 22nd June, 1988 and 15th June, 1989 and to put any doubts to rest, the said Office Order was "ratified" by the BOD in its meeting held on 21st July, 1995, as a part of an ongoing process of review.

24. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that what had been approved by the BOD was redesignation of the post of SPS as AO and not the reclassification or recategorization of the post of SPS. The difference, as pointed out by the learned counsel, is that redesignation merely means a change of nomenclature and nothing more. He placed reliance in this regard on Office Order No. 1048/92 dated 19th May, 1992 whereby the post of Office Superintendent (amongst others) was redesignated as AAO. This involved only a change of name. However, in the present case what has been done by the Respondent is not only a change of name but also change of pay scale and change of duties. This, according to learned counsel, amounts to something much more than mere redesignation.

25. We find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner. The Respondents have not only redesignated the post of SPS as AO but have changed the pay scale of the said post, converted it from a Group B to a Group A post, changed the promotional avenue and also perhaps the duties and responsibilities attached to the post. This was impermissible and well beyond what was ostensibly intended by the BOD.

26. We also find that what has been done by the Respondents is also in disregard of the refusal by the Government and the Department of Public Enterprises to upgrade the pay scale of SPS from Rs. 2000-3500 to Rs. 2200-4000 as it clear from the letters dated 3rd June, 1991, 19th Sepetember, 1991 and 23rd March, 1992. We cannot permit the Respondents to achieve indirectly what they could not achieve directly. Moreover, the recommenda-tions of the HPPC and the O.M dated 12th June, 1990 are binding on the Respondents and they cannot get out of the rigours of the same in the manner that they are seeking to do.