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)

J U D G M E N T

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 25th  

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