REPORTABL
E
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7113 OF 2005
UNNI MENON ...Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ...Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the final judgment
and order dated 12th April, 2004 passed by the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore rendered in Civil Writ
Petition No. 33496 of 2000(S-CAT) whereby the High
Court set aside and quashed the order passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, (`CAT’ for
short) dated 1st March, 2000 and held that the
Accounts Department in the CAT does not fall within
the ambit of `Organized Accounts Cadres’.
1
2. We may notice here the essential facts necessary for
the adjudication of the present appeal. Unni Menon,
appellant herein, joined the Indian Audit and
Accounts Department as Upper Division Clerk
w.e.f. 10th October, 1967. He thereafter cleared the
SAS examination and was promoted as Section Officer,
w.e.f. 24th October, 1973, in the office of Accountant
General, Bangalore, Karnataka. The appellant was
further promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer w.e.f.
1st April, 1987 by virtue of his seniority and merit.
3. While he was working as Assistant Accounts Officer in
the office of the Accountant General, he went on
deputation to work in the CAT, Bangalore Bench
w.e.f. 21st August, 1989. As the appellant was on
deputation, his lien was maintained in his parent
department, i.e., Accountant General, Karnataka
Circle, Bangalore. On the basis of his lien and
seniority, he was promoted as Accounts Officer in his
parent office, i.e., in office of the Accountant General,
2
Bangalore, w.e.f. 1st April 1992. Thereafter, he
was absorbed as Accounts Officer in the Central
Administrative Tribunal w.e.f. 23rd March, 1994.
4. The IV Pay Commission made certain
recommendations in the matter of pay scales between
the Accounts Officers in the Accounts Wing and the
Accounts Officers in the Audit Wing of the Indian
Audit and Accounts Department. The relevant
extract of the recommendations is as under :-
“There has all along been parity between the
staff in the IA & AD and Accounts staff and
other Departments which has been disturbed
by restructuring of IA & AD into two separate
cadres viz, Audit Cadre and Accounts and
Establishment Cadre and giving higher pay
scales to a major portion of staffs on the audit
side. The audit and accounts functions are
complementary to each other and are generally
performed in many government offices in an
integrated manner which is necessary for their
effective functioning. The Staff in these offices
perform functions of internal check and audit
suited to the requirements of each organization
which are equally important. There is direct
recruitment in the scale of Rs. 330-560 in all
the audit and accounts cadres through Staff
Selection Commission, Railway Recruitment
Boards from amongst University graduates.
Therefore, in view of this, there should be
3
board parity in the pay scales of the staff of IA
& AD and other accounts organizations.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the posts
in the pay scale of Rs. 475-700 in the
organized accounts cadres may be given the
scale of Rs. 1400-2600.”
5. Pursuant to the recommendations of the IV Pay
Commission, Government of India issued a circular
vide No. F.6(82)/IC/91 dated 22nd September, 1992
giving promotional grade for Audit/Accounts Officers
of `Organized Accounts Cadres’.
6. It is the case of the appellant that he should have been
promoted to the cadre of Sr. Accounts Officer w.e.f. 1st
April, 1995 on his completion of three years’ of service
in the cadre of Accounts Officer in the scale
of Rs. 2375 – 3500 pursuant to the aforesaid circular
dated 22nd September, 1992. He further pointed out
that the persons junior to him in his parent
department had been promoted on completion of three
years’ service. Since the nature of duties performed
and responsibilities shouldered by him in CAT are
4
identical or very similar to the duties and
responsibilities in the parent cadre, he was entitled to
parity in designation and pay with his counterparts in
the Indian Audit & Accounts Department.
7. Being aggrieved, the appellant made a representation
to the Chairman, CAT, New Delhi. The Chairman, CAT,
New Delhi wrote to the Department of Personnel and
Training, Bangalore. The matter was taken up by
Department of Personnel and Training in a detailed
manner for conversion of 80% posts of Accounts
Officer/ Junior Accounts Officer to the post of Senior
AIO, AAO and Senior Accountant vide letter
dated 16th September, 1997.
8. Thereafter, CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi informed
the Registrar, CAT, Bangalore, that as the CAT did not
have `Organized Accounts Cadres’, therefore, the
benefit of O.M. dated 22nd September, 1992, could not
be extended to the appellant and, therefore, he is not
5
entitled to get the promotion as mentioned under the
Memorandum dated 22nd September, 1992.
Subsequently, the CAT rejected appellant’s plea for
promotion to the cadre of Sr. Accounts Officer.
9. The appellant then filed an application being OA
No. 15 of 1999 before the CAT, Bangalore. The CAT
vide its final order dated 1st March, 2000 allowed his
application and held that CAT is also to be considered
as an `Organized Accounts Cadre’. The CAT actually
noticed that the appellant having been absorbed in
CAT, Bangalore, w.e.f. 23rd March, 1994, about one
year prior to his completion of three years, had lost his
lien in the parent department. It had been duly
terminated on 26th March, 1994.
10. Having noticed as above, the CAT also noticed that
Central Administrative Tribunal (Accounts Personnel
Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to
as `Recruitment Rules, 1990′), were applicable to the
6
officials of CAT. But on interpretation of the aforesaid
rules, it observed that the recruitment rules would
indicate that there is an `Organized Accounts Cadre’,
even though there is no `Organized Accounts Service’
in CAT. Therefore, the respondents, according to CAT,
were making an artificial distinction between
`Organized Accounts Cadres’ and `Organized Accounts
Services’, which very much existed in CAT. The
conclusion was justified on the basis that the
recruitment rules clearly provided a hierarchy of posts
available in the accounts cadre. The highest post
available is `Deputy Controller of Accounts, next one
Accounts Officer, the third one Junior Accounts
Officer, the fourth one Senior Accountant and then the
Junior Accountant’. It, therefore, held that CAT has
an `Organized Accounts Cadre’ and the Memorandum
dated 22nd September, 1992 would be applicable. 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
7
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 observed 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.”
With the aforesaid observations CAT held that the
Accounts Department is also to be considered as an
8
`Organized Accounts Cadre’. The respondents were
directed to reconsider the representations of the
appellant and to pass suitable orders in the light of the
observations made in the order within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
11.Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the CAT, the
respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court
of Karnataka. The Division Bench of the High Court
has allowed the writ petition and set aside the
impugned order of CAT. The application filed by the
appellant before the CAT has been dismissed.
12.Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the
appellant is before us in the present appeal. The short
question which arises in these proceedings was
formulated by the High Court as follows:-
“Whether the respondent is entitled to be
considered for promotion as Sr. Accounts
Officer in CAT with effect from 1-4-1995 base
on the Official Memorandum dated 23.3.1992
bearing No.2402-GE.II/116-92?”
9
13.Answering the aforesaid question, the High Court
held:-
i) The Central Administrative Tribunal is a separate
entity created under statute, is not a department of
the Central Government.
ii) The Official Memorandum in question is issued for
the purpose of re-designating the promotional grade
of Audit/Accounts Officers in `Organized Accounts
Cadres’ as Sr. Audit Officer, Sr. Accounts Officer.
Consequent upon the creation of promotional grade
for 80 per cent of the Audit/Accounts Officer in a
different scale.
iii) The Memorandum specifically states that it is
applicable to Indian Audits and Accounts
Department and other `Organized Accounts Cadres’,
except Railway Accounts Cadres.
iv) Therefore, at best, it could apply to all Central
Government departments and every establishment
under the Central Services, where there is an
organized cadre.
10
v) There is no possibility of re-designation of posts in
CAT as there is no post of Sr. Accounts Officer in
the hierarchy of the accounts cadre of the CAT.
vi) The cadre hierarchy in CAT is regulated by the
Recruitment Rules, 1990. The Division Bench
noticed the provision contained in Rule 3 which
governs the number of posts, classification and
their scales of pay which read as under:-
“The number of the said posts, their
classification and the scale of pay
attached thereto shall be as specified in
column 2 to 4 of the said schedule”.
14. We are entirely in agreement with the observations
made by the High Court. We may, however, add that
the respondent having lost his lien in the parent
department w.e.f. 26th March, 1994, can not claim the
benefit of the O.M. dated 22nd September, 1992, as by
the relevant time, he was borne on the cadre of
Accounts Department of CAT. The promotions, if any
of junior in the parent department would be of no
relevance for consideration of the case of the appellant.
11
The service conditions of the officers of CAT are
admittedly governed by the Recruitment Rules, 1990.
Schedule 2 of the aforesaid Rules does not include any
cadre called the `Sr. Accounts Officer’, to which the
appellant wanted promotion. In fact, the cadre of
accounts personnel in CAT consists of five categories
of posts, namely, `Deputy Controller of Accounts,
Accounts Officer, Junior Accounts Officer, Senior
Accountant and Junior Accountant’. The appellant
was designated as the Accounts Officer at the relevant
time. Therefore, his promotion could only have been
to the next post of Deputy Controller of Accounts. In
view of the above, the O.M. dated 22nd September,
1992 clearly would have no application in the case of
the appellant.
15. 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
12
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.
16. We are wholly unimpressed by both limbs of the
submissions. It cannot be disputed that CAT is an
independent entity created under the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985. Section 13 sub-section 2 of the
aforesaid Act provides that the salaries and allowances
and conditions of the service of the officers and other
employees of a Tribunal shall be such, as may be
specified by rules made by the appropriate
governments. Undoubtedly, the Accounts and
13
Personnel Department is governed by the Recruitment
Rules, 1990 framed under the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985, which are independent and self-
contained. They could not be intermingled with the
Rules of Central Government Departments. Therefore,
the examples given by the learned counsel for the
appellant relating to an isolated post in the BSF on the
basis of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the
case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. J.R. Chobedar,
W.P. (C) No. 20065-67 of 2004 decided on 25 th
January, 2005 would be of no assistance to the
appellant. Similarly, the judgment of this Court in the
case of State of Mizoram & Anr. Vs. Mizoram
Engineering Service Association & Anr.1 would have
no application as it related to discrimination with
regard to pay revision in the Engineering Department
of Mizoram. It was in the context of the submission
that the Engineering service in the State was not an
organized service, this Court observed that there can
be hardly any difference in organized and unorganized
1
[(2004) 6 SCC 218]
14
service so far as Government service is concerned. We
may note here the observations made by this Court in
Paragraph 6 of the judgment, which is as under:-
“6. Great stress was laid on the fact that
Engineering Service in the State was not an
organised service and therefore, it did not have
categorisation by way of entrance-level and
senior-level posts and for that reason the
higher scale of Rs 5900-6700 which was
admissible for senior-level posts could not be
given in the Engineering Service. The main
reason for dubbing Engineering Service as an
unorganised service in the State is absence of
recruitment rules for the service. Who is
responsible for not framing the recruitment
rules? Are the members of the Engineering
Service responsible for it? The answer is
clearly “No”. For failure of the State
Government to frame recruitment rules and
bring Engineering Service within the
framework of organised service, the engineers
cannot be made to suffer. Apart from the
reason of absence of recruitment rules for the
Engineering Service, we see hardly any
difference in organised and unorganised
service so far as government service is
concerned. In government service such a
distinction does not appear to have any
relevance. Civil service is not trade unionism.
We fail to appreciate what is sought to be
conveyed by use of the words “organised
service” and “unorganised service”. Nothing
has been pointed out in this behalf. The
argument is wholly misconceived.”
15
These observations clearly show that the Engineering
Service had been dubbed as unorganized service as the
State had failed to frame the necessary recruitment rules.
This Court, therefore, observed that the State
Government can not take advantage of its own failure to
frame the recruitment rules and bring the Engineering
Service within the framework of organized service. For
such failure, the Engineers could not be made to suffer.
The aforesaid observations have no application to the
facts and circumstances of this case.
17. We, therefore, find no merit in the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of
the above, the appeal is dismissed.
……………………………..J.
[B.Sudershan Reddy]
16
……………………………..J.
[Surinder Singh Nijjar]
New Delhi;
January 07, 2011.
17