Supreme Court of India
M. HARA BHUPALversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1997 INSC 192
- Decided
- 24 February 1997
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Tribunal was correct in refusing to grant seniority to the petitioner, as Private Secretary and Section Officer are distinct posts governed by separate recruitment rules and cannot be treated as analogous for seniority purposes.
Summary
M. Hara Bhupal, a Section Officer in the Intelligence Bureau, was deputed to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) as Private Secretary on 14 June 1989. He later sought absorption in the CAT as a Section Officer, which was granted effective 4 November 1996, and claimed seniority either from his promotion date in the parent department or from the date of deputation. The CAT Tribunal rejected his claim, holding that the posts of Private Secretary and Section Officer are governed by two distinct sets of recruitment rules and are not interchangeable for seniority purposes. The petitioner relied on the concept of "analogous posts" and cited earlier Supreme Court decisions on the meaning of "grade". The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the recruitment rules define separate cadres and that analogous post provisions cannot be used to transfer seniority across different rule regimes. Consequently, the petition for special leave was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a deputed Private Secretary can be treated as a Section Officer for the purpose of seniority under the CAT recruitment rules.
- Whether the concept of "analogous posts" permits transposition of seniority between posts governed by different recruitment rules.
- Interpretation of the term "grade" and its relevance to seniority in service law.
- Whether the Tribunal's limitation period for repatriation is valid.
Subjects
seniorityanalogous postsrecruitment rulesprivate secretarysection officercentral administrative tribunalabsorptiondeputationservice law
Judgment
M. HARA BHUPAL A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 24, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] B
Service Law :
Central Administrative Tribunal (Group Band C Miscellaneous Posts)
Recruitment Rules, 1989/Central Administrative Tribunal Stenographers' Ser- C
vices (Group B and C) Rules, 1989:
'
Seniority-Section Officer-Jn Ministry of Home Affairs Government of
India-Joined on deputation as Private Secretary to Member CA. T. on
14.6.1989-Acceptcd unconditionally his dbs01ption as Section Officer in
C.A. T. w.e.f 4.11.1994-Claimed senio1ity as Section Officer either from the D
date of his promotion as such in parent depanment or from the date of joining
C4 T as P.S.-Claim rejected by Tribimal-Held, Tribunal was right in not
accepting the claim of the appellant as he had not held the post of Section
Officer in C.A. T.-Merely because the persons are peifonnilig the analogous
responsibility govemed by two sets of rules, they cannot be treated to be on E
par for the purpose of seniority.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 3322 of 1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.12.96 of the Central Ad- F
ministrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 1333 of 1995.
D. Prakash Reddy for .G. Prabhakar for the Petitioner.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G
This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, made on December 24, 19% in O.A.
No. 1333/95.
The admitted position is that the petitioner, while working as Section
Officer in the Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of H
455
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R.
A India, came on deputation to the C.A.T., Hyderabad Bench on June 14,
1989 as Private Secretary to the Member. Thereafter, he sought absorption
in the services of the C.A.T. as Private Secretary. There was a long drawn
correspondence on this issue and ultimately an option was given to him to
get absorbed as Section Officer. Accordingly, he opted for and accepted
unconditionally his absorption as a Section Officer in the CAT. He came
B
to be absorbed w.e.f. November_ 4, 1996. He filed an O.A. in the Tribunal
claiming seniority with reference to the date of his promotion as Section
Officer in his parent Department or alternatively, from the date of his
deputation from June 14, 1989 contending that he had given his option
subject to protection of his seniority. The Tribunal has pointed out in its
C order that there are two different sets of rules for the recruitment of Private
Secretaries and Section Officers. The post of Private Secretary is governed
by the rules called Central Administrative Tribunal Stenographers' Services
(Group B and C posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989. Equally, there are rules
issued by the President under the Act governing the ministeriaLstaff. They
D are called .the Central Administrative Tribunal (Group B and C Miscel-
laneous Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989. The posts of the Private Secretary
are covered by the Stenographers' Services Rules while the posts of Section
Officer are covered by the Ministerial Staff Services Rules. Rule 5(1) of
the former Rules reads as under :
E "5(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of these
rules , the persons holding the posts of Private Secretary....... in the
CAT on the date of commencement of the rules .... on deputation
basis and who fulfil the qualifications and experience laid down in
these rules and who are considered suitable by the Departmental
Promotion Committee shall be eligible or absorption/regularisation
F
in the respective grade subject to the condition that such persons
exercise their option for the absorption and that their Parent
Department do not have any objection to their being absorbed in
the Tribunal."
G The Tribunal has pointed out the appointment of the appellant to the post
of Private Secretary was made by way of transfer on deputation and is
governed by the conditions mentioned in Annexure I to the Rules. The
Tribunal ordered as under :
H "The "CAT (Group 'B' & 'C' Miscellaneous Posts) Recruitment
M.HARABHUPALv. U.O.l. 457
Rules, 1989" were made separately vide Notification dated 20.9.89 A
by the Department of Personnel & Training. These rules make
separate provisions for the posts of 'Court Officers/Section
Officers'. In the Schedule the posts has been designated as Group
'B' Gazetted in the pay scale of Rs. 2000- 3500. Only to that extent
it is similar to Private Secretary. However, the mode of recruitment B
is different. The method prescribed is ;
"(i) 50% by Direct recruitment failing which by Trans-
fer/transfer on deputation.
(ii) 50% by promotion failing which by transfer on deputa- C
tion."
The entry in column 12 on which an argument of the applicant has
been built, in so far as material here, provides as follows :
"(ii) Transfer on deputation/Transfer" :
D
Person working under CentraVState Government/High Court
Court/Subordinate Courts.
(a) (i) holding analogous post on regular basis, or
(ii) holding posts of Assistant or equivalent in the scale of E
Rs. 1400-2600 with 8 years regular service.
(b) possessing the educational qualifications prescribed for direct
recruits in column 8."
The appointment is through selection by D.P.C. Rule 5 of the F
aforesaid rules also makes provision for absorption/regularisation
of Court Officer/Section Officers in the same grade subject to
exercising option and no objection of parent department. The rule
applies to those who held the said post on the date of commence-
ment of the rules either on transfer or on deputation basis. The G
qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment in column 8 for
these posts are :
"Essential. \
Degree of a recognised University or equivalent. H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R. +
A Desirable.
Degree in law."
The picture that emerges on comparison of the two sets of recruit-
ment rules is as follows :
B
"(i) the two posts, namely of Private Secretary and Section/Court
Officer are governed by separate set of recruitment rules.
(ii) The mode and method relating to recruitment to these posts
are different in material requirements.
c (iii) The educational qualifications are different."
Thus we have no hesitation in holding that these are two distinct
posts. The eligibility criteria for absorption vide Rule 5 of both the
set of Rule lays down two essential conditions, namely, that on the
D date on which the two set of Rules were brought into force the
incumbent should have been holding the same post and would be
eligible to be absorbed in the same grade. In the context although
the scale of pay of the post of Private Secretary and Section Officer
may be the same and both may be feeder cadre for further
promotion yet the words same grade occurring in Rule 5 of the
E
respective Recruitment Rules must mean the same post to which
the particular Recruitment Rules would apply. Interchangeability
in the two posts cannot be read in the rules. In other words a
Section Officer could be eligible to be absorbed only as Section
Officer and a Private Secretary only as Private Secretary subject
F to the condition of holding the post on the date of commence-
ment of the respective rules.
It is submitted by the applicant that notwithstanding that he was
holding the post of Private Secretary he should be deemed to be
in equivalent grade or in analogous post and on that basis he could
G be absorbed even as Section Officer so that he would not lose the
benefit of post service for seniority. The applicant seek to rely on
the decision of the Supreme Court in Hari Nandan Sharan Bhat-
nagar v. S.N. Dixit, AIR (1970) SC 40. It was held in that case tnat'
the dictionary meaning of 'grade' is rank, position in scale, a class
H or position in a class according to the value. The term however
"
M.HARABHUPALv. U.O.I. 459
was explained inA.K. Subraman v. Union of India, AIR (1975) SC A
483 as having various shades of meaning in the service
jurisprudence, sometimes used to denote a pay scale and some-
times a cadre. It is relevant to note that under the Stenographers
Service Recruitment Rules, 1989, 58 posts of Private Secretary
were specified and under the Miscellaneous Posts Recruitment B
Rules, 1989, 91 posts of Court Officer/Section Officer were
specified subject to variation depending on workload. In that sense
posts of Private Secretary and Court Officer/Section Officer would
fall in two separate cadres. The word 'cadre' means permanent
establishment of regiment forming nucleus for expansion at need
and it does not mean post but strength of the establishment (See C
D.G. of Health Services v. Bikas Chatterjee, AIR (1969) Cal. 525).
- We are therefore unable to reach any element of interchangeability
in the two posts for the purpose of absorption in the posts of
Section Officer as analogous to absorption in the post of Section
Officer as analogous to absorption in the post of Private Secretary D
for reckoning seniority. The argument of the applicant therefore
cannot be accepted."
On the basis of the above distinction, the Tribunal has rightly pointed
out that the method of recruitment to the tWo categories of posts are
different and distinct and, therefore, both the posts cannot be treated to E
be analogous.
I
Shri D. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
has stated that the Government in DOP & T O.M. No. AB14017/71/89-
Estt., dated October 3, 1989 has prescribed the· procedure to be followed F
in cases where the appointment is to be made· by transfer or transfer on
deputation basis. The consolidated instructions indicated in paragraph 5 of
'Analogous Posts' and items (i) to (iv) indicated thereunder reac! as under:
- "Whenever the recruitment rules for a post prescribe "transfer on
deputation/transfer" as a method of filling up the post, _they G
generally contain an entry in column 12 of the standard form of .
·schedule stating inter alia that the "transfer on deputation/transfer"
shall be made from amongst the officers holding analogous posts
on regular basis under the Central/State Governments. This
Department has been receiving references from various Mini- H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R. +
A stries/Departments asking for the definition of 'analogous posts'.
It has, therefore, been considered appropriate to lay down the
following criteria for determining whether a post could be treated
as analogous to a posts under the Central Government : .~
(i) Though the scale of pay of the two posts which are being
B compared may not be identical, they should be such as to be
an extension or a segment of each other, e.g.; for a post
carrying the pay scale of Rs. 3,000-5,000, persons holding
posts in the pay of Rs. 3,000-4,500 will be eligible.
c (ii) Both the posts should be falling in the same Group of posts
as defined in the Department of Personnel and Administra-
tive Reforms Notification No. 13012./2/87-Est. (D) dated the
30th June 1987, viz., Group 'A', Group 'B' etc.
(iii) The levels of responsibility and the duties of the two posts
D should also be comparable.
(iv) Where specific qualifications for transfer on deputation/
transfer have not been prescribed, the qualifications and
experience of the officers to be selected should be com-
parable to those prescribed for direct recruits so the 'post
E
where direct recruitment has also been prescribed as one of
the methods of appointment in the recruitment rules'.
F
Where promotion is the method of filling up such posts, only
those persons from other Departments may be brought on
transfer on deputation whose qualifications and experience
-
are comparable to those prescribed for direct recruitment for
the feeder grade/post from which the promotion has been
made." -
G He contends that since the analogous posts, i.e., Private Secretaries
and Section Officers, carry, admittedly, the same scale of pay, the
petitioner is entitled to be transposed and treated as S.O. right from the
date of the absorption and, therefore, he is entitled to seniority from the
date when he was holding the post of S.O. in his parent Department or
alternatively from the date of his deputation. We find no force in the
H contention. It is true that under the above instructions, as indicated above,
M. HARA BHUPAL v. U.0.1. 461
if the post held in the parent Department from which he came on deputa- A
tion and the post in incumbent holds in the deputation service are
analogous, certainly he is entitled to have the benefit of the above instruc-
tions. But when candidates are governed by two different sets of rules in
the deputation service, even if they are analogous posts, one cannot· be
transposed from the service of one set of rules into the service of another B
set of rules. The object of the rules made was to regulate the conditions of
service in each cadre/grade and to provide method of direct recruitment
or by promotion from one ladder to the higher ladder. If the adoption of
this transposition by analogous situation is given acceptance, necessarily
one can, by manipulation, get into another service and seek promotional
avenues or recruitment by back door method, which can never be given C
acceptance. Under those circumstances, we think that the Tribunal was
right in not accepting the contention of the petitioner that he should be
given the seniority as Section Officer w.e.f. the date when he was holding
that post in parent Department or from the date of his deputation to the
CAT, though, admittedly, he had not held the post as Section Officer in D
the CAT.
.It is then .contended by the learned counsel that since the petitioner
had given his option conditionally, he cannot be put in a disadvantageous
position than those who equally hold the analogous post, namely Section
Officers, Private Secretaries and the Stenographers who performing the E
same set of responsibilities and duties. Therefore, Item 2 of the analogous
position explained in the above O.M. would be applicable to the petitioner
to the same. We find no force in the contention to give acceptance. Merely
because the persons performing the analogous responsibility governed by
two sets of rules, they cannot be treated to be on par for the purpose of F
giving seniority.
It is then contended that the direction issued by the Tribunal in the
operative part of the order has been limited to a period mentioned there-
under. By operation thereof, the petitioner would be denied the benefit
which may be extended. We find force in the contention. It is seen that in G
paragraph 61(7) of the order, the Tribunal has stated that "subject to
applicant seeking repatriation within two months from today and the steps
as may be taken by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in that behalf his absorption
as Section Officer in CAT w.e.f. 11.6.1994 shall otherwise stand undis-
turbed and he shall be entitled for fixation of his seniority accordingly as H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R.
A per the rules." In view of the pendency of the matter, we extend two
month's time as given by the Tribunal from today. It is open to him to avail
of the directions issued by the Tribunal or get himself repatriated to the
parent Department. It is needless to mention that in the event of his being
repatriated, he is entitled to all the benefits in his parent Department on
B par with his immediate juniors.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
R.P. Petition dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "seniority"Sign in to search