Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 740
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2342 OF 2011
RAMPAT AZAD (R.P. AZAD) …APPELLANT(S)
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECT
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the High
Court of Delhi in a writ petition filed by the appellant. The
writ petition was filed by the appellant to challenge the order
nd
dated 2 December 2008 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on an original application filed
by the appellant.
th
2. The appellant was appointed on 15 July 1976 as a
Junior Field Officer (JFO), which was a Group B Non-
Gazetted post. The pay scale attached to the post was Rs.
550-25-750-30-900. His appointment was made at the Carpet
Signature Not Verified
Weaving Training Centre, Jalapur, District Varanasi, which is
Digitally signed by
ASHISH KONDLE
Date: 2025.05.20
17:49:19 IST
Reason:
run by the All-India Handicrafts Board, a part of the Ministry
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 1 of 16
of Commerce. It was stated in the appointment order that the
post on which the appellant was appointed was purely a
temporary post under a planned scheme. It was also provided
that the appointment was on an ad-hoc basis and was to
continue as such till regular appointments were made as per
the rules. It was observed that though the appellant was
entitled to draw HRA and other allowances admissible by
Government servants under the rules, the appointment of the
appellant would be ad-hoc, which would not bestow on him
any claim to a regular appointment.
st
3. With effect from 1 March 1978, under the orders of the
th
Government of India dated 15 February 1978, all JFOs in
the carpet weaving training centres of the All India
Handicrafts Board were redesignated as Carpet Training
Officers (CTOs) (Group-C non-Gazetted). While doing so, their
pay scale was downgraded to Rs 550-20-650-25-800. As per
th
the order of the All India Handicrafts Board dated 4 June
1979, the Development Commissioner accorded sanction to
redesignate the post of Junior Field Officers (JFOs) in the pay
scale of Rs. 550/25/750/EB/30/900 as Handicrafts
Promotion Officers (HPOs). It was observed in the order that
the services rendered by the persons in the post of JFOs in All
India Handicrafts Board shall be counted for seniority, leave,
increment, confirmation, etc. in the posts of HPOs.
The Government of India in partial modification of the
4.
th th
order dated 15 February 1978, by the order dated 16 May
1997, directed that the officers who were holding the post of
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 2 of 16
st
JFOs in the carpet scheme prior to 1 March 1978 and whose
posts were redesignated as CTOs in the pay scale of Rs.550-
th
800 vide order dated 15 February 1978 shall be accorded
restoration of pay scale of Rs.550-900 in Group B with effect
st
from 1 March 1978. However, all conditions mentioned in
th
the order dated 15 February 1978 will remain unchanged.
The status of CTOs will be ad-hoc, subject to regularisation
by UPSC as per the rules.
5. The appellant filed OA No. 2921 of 1997 before the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short,
nd
the CAT). By order dated 2 December 1999, the CAT
directed that in case of the appellant and other similarly
situated persons who were holding the post on an ad-hoc
basis for a period of 23 years, the respondent Union of India
should take steps to regularise the appellant and other
similarly situated persons against available regular vacancies
of CTOs. The Union of India was also directed to consider
their cases for promotion, subject to the availability of
th
vacancies. On 26 June 2006, the ad-hoc service of the
appellant as CTO (erstwhile JFO) was regularised with effect
from the date of his appointment in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-
175-9000.
th
6. On 6 July 2007, the CAT, Principal Bench granted time
to the respondents to comply with the earlier direction
pertaining to promotion of the appellant. Thereafter, the
appellant filed OA No. 2351 of 2007. The appellant sought
nd
direction to promote him. By the order dated 2 December
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 3 of 16
2008, the CAT directed the respondents to create promotional
avenues or extend the financial upgradation as per the
method laid down under the law. A direction was given to
make compliance within six months. This order was
challenged by way of a writ petition by the appellant. The writ
petition was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned
judgment and order.
SUBMISSIONS
7. Detailed submissions have been made by Mr. Talha
Abdul Rahman, AOR, who has been appointed as amicus
curiae to espouse the cause of the petitioner.
8. The learned counsel appointed as Amicus has taken us
through the impugned judgments of the CAT and of the High
Court. He submitted that the stand of the respondents taken
before the CAT of holding and treating the appellant as one
belonging to the cadre of CTO was fundamentally wrong. He
pointed out that the respondents themselves appointed the
appellant in the service as JFO Group B in the pay scale of
Rs. 500-900. Moreover, the respondents themselves
redesignated the appellant and other similarly situated JFOs
as CTOs in Group-C with a lesser grade. He pointed out that
the respondents admitted that this redesignation and down-
scaling was wrong and therefore, the appellant was re-
regularised back to his original cadre as JFO, Group-B with
the pay scale of Rs. 500-900. Thereafter, the respondents
redesignated all the JFOs who were appointed from 1975-78
as Handicrafts Promotion Officers (HPOs), Group-B in the pay
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 4 of 16
scale of Rs. 550-900 (pre-revised). He invited our attention to
th
the order dated 26 June 2006 by virtue of which the
appellant stood regularised in his original regular post of JFO
Group-B. This was done with the concurrence of the Union
Public Service Commission (UPSC). As the appellant was
originally appointed as a JFO, Group B, he needed to be
redesignated and treated as an HPO. Thereafter, the
appellant ought to have been given the benefits of promotion
in the channel of HPO.
9. Learned counsel submitted that there is a fundamental
error committed by the CAT in treating the appellant as
belonging to the cadre of CTO. He, therefore, submitted that
the CAT ought to have passed an order directing the
reconvening of the departmental promotion committee for
promoting the appellant.
10. Learned counsel pointed out the cases of respondent
Nos. 4 and 5, who were also appointed as JFOs in the pay
scale of Rs . 550-900. According to the appellant, they were
junior in service to him. Both of them were given the benefit
of redesignation as HPO and a grant of promotion in that
channel. They were promoted as Assistant Director
(Handicrafts), Deputy Director (Handicrafts) and finally as
Regional Directors (Handicrafts). He submitted that both the
officers are junior in service to the appellants.
11. He pointed out that respondents cannot defeat their own
th
order dated 4 June 1979, by which all JFOs appointed from
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 5 of 16
1975-78 were redesignated as HPOs. He submitted that a
gross illegality was committed by redesignating about 60
JFOs as CTOs in a lesser grade and pay scale. He pointed out
that JFOs who have been redesignated as HPOs and JFOs
who were down-graded as CTOs were still maintaining a
th
common list of seniority. He pointed out the order dated 16
May 1997 and submitted that when, by that order, the
appellant was removed from the cadre of CTO and was placed
in the cadre of JFO, it was incumbent for the respondents to
th
give benefits of the order dated 4 June 1979 to the appellant.
The learned counsel relied upon communication issued by the
nd
respondents on 22 August 2000, which was addressed to
the UPSC. In the said communication, respondents admitted
that the appellant belongs to the category of CTOs who were
redesignated from the post of JFOs Group-B, along with 45
others. It was admitted that they needed to be regularised
and brought back to the designation and cadre of JFO. He
relied upon the order passed in OA No. 2921 of 1997 by the
CAT. He submitted that the action of the respondents in
denying the benefit of the post of HPO to the appellant was
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
The submission of learned counsel appearing for the
12.
respondents is that the JFOs in the carpet scheme and the
JFOs in the marketing scheme were two separate cadres
having separate nature of jobs. These two schemes were
functional under the office of the Development Commissioner
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 6 of 16
(DC, Handicrafts). Learned counsel pointed out that JFOs
appointed in the carpet scheme were called JFO (Carpet
Scheme), and JFOs who were appointed in the marketing
scheme were called JFO (Marketing Scheme). He pointed out
that the JFOs in the carpet scheme were redesignated as
th
CTOs under an order dated 15 February 1978. The JFOs in
the marketing scheme were redesignated as HPOs by the
th
order dated 4 June 1979. He submitted that the work done
by JFOs (Carpet Scheme) and JFOs (Marketing Scheme) was
completely different. Learned counsel submitted that the
th
appellant was originally appointed on an ad-hoc basis on 15
July 1976 as a JFO (Group B Non-Gazetted) in the scale of
Rs. 550-900 in the Carpet Weaving Centre, Jalalpur District,
Varanasi (U.P.). The exercise of redesignation of JFOs (Carpet
Scheme) to CTOs was done with a view to regularise the
employment of the appellant and similarly situated
individuals. The appellant accepted his redesignation as per
the option he had chosen. The employment of the appellant
th
was regularised by the order dated 26 June 2006 as a CTO
on the basis of recommendations of the UPSC, and his
services continued till December 2013 on being
superannuated. The learned counsel pointed out that the
th
carpet scheme was closed with effect from 12 April 2004,
except in relation to Jammu & Kashmir.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents drew
our attention to the order dated 2nd December 2008 in
Original Application No. 2351 of 2007. He pointed out that a
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 7 of 16
direction was given to regularise the appellant as well as
similarly situated persons in the available regular vacancies of
CTOs and consider their cases for promotion. He submitted
that in terms of the said order, the appellant was granted the
benefit of three financial upgradations (ACPs and MACP),
making his pay scale equivalent to that of the Regional
Director (Handicrafts), which is the highest post on promotion
in the office of Deputy Director, Handicrafts. Learned counsel
pointed out that the appellant and similarly situated persons
were granted grade pay of Rs 7600 (PB-3) in the pay scale of
15600-39100. However, JFOs (Marketing Scheme) who had
been designated as HPOs did not get the benefit of grade pay
of Rs 7600 on the grant of financial upgradation. He,
therefore, submitted that no interference was called for with
the orders of the CAT.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
th
14. The order of appointment of the appellant is of 15 July
1976, appointing him as JFO (Group-B Non-Gazetted) in the
pay scale of 550-25-750-30-900 in the Carpet Weaving
Training Centre. The appointment order stated that it was a
temporary appointment under a Plan Scheme. By the order
th
dated 15 February, 1978, the respondents redesignated all
the JFOs (Group B) in the pay scale of Rs. 550-900 in the
existing Carpet Weaving Training Centres as Carpet Training
Officers (CTOs) – (Group C Non-Gazetted), in the pay scale of
Rs. 550-20-650-25-800. Thus, CTOs, including the
appellant, were downgraded.
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 8 of 16
th
15. What is important is the order dated 4 June 1979,
which reads thus:
“In exercise of the powers vested in the
Development Commissioner for
Handicrafts, All India Handicrafts Board,
as Head of Department, sanction is
hereby accorded to re- designate the
posts of Junior Field Officers in the
scale of pay of Rs. 550-25-750-EB-30-
900 in the All India Handicrafts Board,
as Handicrafts Promotion Officers with
effect from 12th May, 1979.
The services rendered by the persons
concerned in the posts of Junior Field
Officers in the All India Handicrafts Board
will count for all purposes including
seniority, leave, increment, confirmation
etc. in the posts of Handicrafts Promotion
Officers.”
(emphasis added)
th
16. Then comes the order of this Court dated 13
September 1994 passed in the case of Sushil Kumar Sehgal
v. Union of India in C.A. No.3009 of 1989. This order was in
the case of the appellant who had joined service as a
temporary JFO and was designated as HPO in an ad hoc
capacity in July 1979. This Court held that an employee
cannot be treated as an ad hoc employee for such a long time.
It was directed that the appellant therein shall be treated as a
regular substantive holder of the post of HPO.
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 9 of 16
th
17. The order dated 16 May 1997 modified the earlier order
th
dated 15 February 1978 by which the appellant and other
JFOs were redesignated and downgraded as CTOs. The order
th
dated 16 May 1997 is very material, which reads thus:-
“In partial modification of this office
order No. 20/16(10)/78-AD. II dated
15.2.1978, sanction of President is
hereby accorded to the restoration of
the scale of pay of Rs. 550-900 in
Group 'B' w.e.f. 1.3.1978, purely on
personal basis, to those officers only
who were holding the post of JFOs in
Carpet Scheme prior to 1.3.1978 and
whose posts were re- designated as
C.T.O. in the scale of pay Rs. 550-800
vide order No. 20/16(10)/78-AD.II
dated 15.2.1978. All other conditions
mentioned in the order No.
20/16(10)/78-AD.II dated 15.2.1978
will remain unchanged. The status of
these CTOs will be ad-hoc and
subject to regularization by UPSC as
per rules.
This issues with the concurrence of
the Ministry of Finance vide their
Diary No. 581/FC/96 dated 8.10.96
and Department of Personnel and
Training vide their Diary No. U.O. No.
C-126/97 Part I dated 9.4.97.”
18. The order can be analysed as under:-
i. The order was applicable to those officers who were
holding the post of JFOs in the carpet scheme prior
st
to 1 March 1978 and whose posts were redesignated
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 10 of 16
as CTOs in the pay scale of Rs.550-800 vide order
th
dated 15 February 1978;
ii. Pay scale of the aforesaid category of officers was
restored in Group B in the pay scale of Rs.550-900;
The effect of the said order is that in the case of the
iii.
officers mentioned in clause (i) above, while
maintaining their designation as CTOs, the pay scale
of Rs.550-900 was restored; and
iv. The status of the CTOs was to be ad-hoc and subject
to regularisation by UPSC, as per the rules;
nd
19. Before we refer to the order dated 2 December 2008,
we must refer to the earlier orders passed in the case of the
nd
appellant. Firstly, we refer to the order dated 2 December
1999 in OA No. 2921 of 1997 passed by the CAT. The
appellant was the applicant in the said OA. This OA was
th
based on the order dated 16 May 1997. In paragraph 4 of
the said order, the CAT directed the respondents to take
prompt steps to regularise the appellant and other similarly
situated persons in the regular vacancies of CTOs and
consider their cases for promotion, subject to the availability
of vacancies in the promotional channel. The appellant did
not challenge the said order by contending that he should be
regularised as an HPO. Thus, he accepted the order directing
his regularisation in the vacancies of CTOs. In terms of the
said order, a communication was addressed by the Deputy
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 11 of 16
nd
Director (Administration) of the Ministry of Textiles on 22
August 2000 to the Secretary of UPSC. As the order of the
CAT was not complied with, a contempt petition was filed.
th
The order dated 13 March 2001 in the contempt petition
records that within three weeks, the respondents shall state
the dates from which the appellant and other similarly
situated persons will be regularised. Thereafter, the order
th
dated 26 June 2006 was issued, which reads thus:
“Consequent upon approval of UPSC vide
letter No. F. No. 4/23(1)/2000-AP-3 dated
3.6.2002 and in continuation of this office
Order No. 15(87)/93-Admn.II dated
16.5.97 the ad-hoc services of Shri R.P.
Azad, CTO (erstwhile Junior Field
Officer) is regularized w.e.f. their date
of appointment / date of joining in the
pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000 .
(emphasis added)
Thus, the appellant was regularised as CTO and not as HPO.
Even this order was not challenged.
20. The appellant again filed a contempt petition before the
CAT. In the order dated July 6, 2007, on the contempt
petition, the CAT observed that it took the respondents seven
years to comply with the first direction to regularise the
appellant, but the second direction was not complied with. A
direction was issued by the CAT to comply with the second
direction regarding the promotion of the appellant. By the
th
order dated 28 September 2007, the respondents held that
the carpet scheme was a closed scheme and therefore, the
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 12 of 16
promotion of the appellant could not be considered.
Thereafter, another original application was filed by the
appellant, being OA No. 2351 of 2007. The OA was disposed
nd
of by order dated 2 December 2008 by issuing a specific
direction to the respondents to either create promotional
avenues or extend the appellant’s financial upgradation as per
the methodology laid down under the rules.
nd
21. It is this order dated 2 December 2008, which was
subjected to challenge before the High Court. The appellant's
objection was to that part of the order by which an option was
given to either create promotional avenues or extend the
financial upgradation. The High Court in the impugned
nd
judgment noted that the order dated 2 December 1999 was
not challenged by the appellant, which directed consideration
of the appellant's case for promotion as a CTO (and not as
HPO), subject to the availability of vacancies in the
promotional channel. The High Court relied upon the order
th
dated 28 September 2007. The High Court observed that for
the promotion to the post of Assistant Director (A & C), the
CTO was the feeder cadre. As the carpet scheme was closed,
all the officials in the cadre of CTOs in the carpet scheme,
other than Jammu & Kashmir, were declared as surplus.
Therefore, the question of promotion of the appellant to a
higher post did not arise at all.
th
We have perused the communication dated 28
22.
September 2007. It is stated therein that the carpet scheme
th
was already closed as of 12 April 2004, except for Jammu
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 13 of 16
and Kashmir; as such, CTOs in the carpet scheme were
declared surplus. Therefore, the question of promoting the
appellant did not arise.
23. It is not in dispute that the appellant was appointed as a
th
JFO in Group B by order dated 15 July 1976. His post was
th
designated and downgraded to CTO by the order dated 15
th
February 1978. In the meanwhile, by the order dated 4
June 1979, all JFOs were redesignated as HPOs with effect
th
from 12 May 1979. What is most important is the order
th
dated 16 May 1997. By the said order, the pay scale of JFOs
in the carpet scheme was restored. What was restored was the
st
pay scale of Rs. 550-900 in Group B with effect from 1
March 1978. However, the designation of appellant and
others as CTOs was not changed.
th
By the order dated 16 May 1997, the status of the
24.
appellant as CTO was maintained, but the earlier pay scale of
st
Rs.550-900 with effect from 1 March 1978 was restored.
That order was challenged by him by filing OA No. 2921 of
nd
1997, which was decided by the order dated 2 December
1999, wherein a direction was issued to regularise the
appellant in the cadre of CTO. The promotional avenues
claimed by the appellant were only available to HPOs.
nd
25. The order dated 2 December 1999 of the CAT directs
the regularisation of the appellant and others in the regular
th
vacancies of CTOs. By the order dated 26 June 2006, the
respondents regularised the service of the appellant as a CTO
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 14 of 16
in the pay scale of Rs 5500-175-9000. In the further order
th
dated 6 July 2007, a direction was issued to consider the
case of the appellant for promotion by considering
promotional avenues available to CTOs. Therefore, the sum
and substance of the impugned orders is that no direction
was ever issued to treat the appellant as HPO.
nd
26. Coming back to the order dated 2 December 1999 of
the CAT, the direction was to regularise the appellant and
other similarly situated persons in the vacancies of CTOs and
consider their cases for promotional avenues in the available
vacancies in the promotional channel. This order was not
challenged.
27. The respondents have relied upon a decision of the Delhi
th
High Court dated 8 August 2007 in N.K. Asthana v. Union
of India, which holds that only JFOs under the marketing
scheme were designated as HPOs and not JFOs working in
the carpet scheme.
28. Therefore, we are unable to issue directions to consider
the appellant as HPO and grant him further promotion.
However, it is discernible from the materials on record that
the appellant was given the benefit of MACP by the
respondents as per the second option given by the CAT in the
nd
order dated 2 December 2008.
29. Hence, we are unable to interfere with the impugned
judgment.
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 15 of 16
30. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
..……………………..J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
.……………………..J.
(Ujjal Bhuyan)
New Delhi;
May 20, 2025
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 16 of 16
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2342 OF 2011
RAMPAT AZAD (R.P. AZAD) …APPELLANT(S)
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECT
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the High
Court of Delhi in a writ petition filed by the appellant. The
writ petition was filed by the appellant to challenge the order
nd
dated 2 December 2008 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on an original application filed
by the appellant.
th
2. The appellant was appointed on 15 July 1976 as a
Junior Field Officer (JFO), which was a Group B Non-
Gazetted post. The pay scale attached to the post was Rs.
550-25-750-30-900. His appointment was made at the Carpet
Signature Not Verified
Weaving Training Centre, Jalapur, District Varanasi, which is
Digitally signed by
ASHISH KONDLE
Date: 2025.05.20
17:49:19 IST
Reason:
run by the All-India Handicrafts Board, a part of the Ministry
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 1 of 16
of Commerce. It was stated in the appointment order that the
post on which the appellant was appointed was purely a
temporary post under a planned scheme. It was also provided
that the appointment was on an ad-hoc basis and was to
continue as such till regular appointments were made as per
the rules. It was observed that though the appellant was
entitled to draw HRA and other allowances admissible by
Government servants under the rules, the appointment of the
appellant would be ad-hoc, which would not bestow on him
any claim to a regular appointment.
st
3. With effect from 1 March 1978, under the orders of the
th
Government of India dated 15 February 1978, all JFOs in
the carpet weaving training centres of the All India
Handicrafts Board were redesignated as Carpet Training
Officers (CTOs) (Group-C non-Gazetted). While doing so, their
pay scale was downgraded to Rs 550-20-650-25-800. As per
th
the order of the All India Handicrafts Board dated 4 June
1979, the Development Commissioner accorded sanction to
redesignate the post of Junior Field Officers (JFOs) in the pay
scale of Rs. 550/25/750/EB/30/900 as Handicrafts
Promotion Officers (HPOs). It was observed in the order that
the services rendered by the persons in the post of JFOs in All
India Handicrafts Board shall be counted for seniority, leave,
increment, confirmation, etc. in the posts of HPOs.
The Government of India in partial modification of the
4.
th th
order dated 15 February 1978, by the order dated 16 May
1997, directed that the officers who were holding the post of
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 2 of 16
st
JFOs in the carpet scheme prior to 1 March 1978 and whose
posts were redesignated as CTOs in the pay scale of Rs.550-
th
800 vide order dated 15 February 1978 shall be accorded
restoration of pay scale of Rs.550-900 in Group B with effect
st
from 1 March 1978. However, all conditions mentioned in
th
the order dated 15 February 1978 will remain unchanged.
The status of CTOs will be ad-hoc, subject to regularisation
by UPSC as per the rules.
5. The appellant filed OA No. 2921 of 1997 before the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short,
nd
the CAT). By order dated 2 December 1999, the CAT
directed that in case of the appellant and other similarly
situated persons who were holding the post on an ad-hoc
basis for a period of 23 years, the respondent Union of India
should take steps to regularise the appellant and other
similarly situated persons against available regular vacancies
of CTOs. The Union of India was also directed to consider
their cases for promotion, subject to the availability of
th
vacancies. On 26 June 2006, the ad-hoc service of the
appellant as CTO (erstwhile JFO) was regularised with effect
from the date of his appointment in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-
175-9000.
th
6. On 6 July 2007, the CAT, Principal Bench granted time
to the respondents to comply with the earlier direction
pertaining to promotion of the appellant. Thereafter, the
appellant filed OA No. 2351 of 2007. The appellant sought
nd
direction to promote him. By the order dated 2 December
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 3 of 16
2008, the CAT directed the respondents to create promotional
avenues or extend the financial upgradation as per the
method laid down under the law. A direction was given to
make compliance within six months. This order was
challenged by way of a writ petition by the appellant. The writ
petition was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned
judgment and order.
SUBMISSIONS
7. Detailed submissions have been made by Mr. Talha
Abdul Rahman, AOR, who has been appointed as amicus
curiae to espouse the cause of the petitioner.
8. The learned counsel appointed as Amicus has taken us
through the impugned judgments of the CAT and of the High
Court. He submitted that the stand of the respondents taken
before the CAT of holding and treating the appellant as one
belonging to the cadre of CTO was fundamentally wrong. He
pointed out that the respondents themselves appointed the
appellant in the service as JFO Group B in the pay scale of
Rs. 500-900. Moreover, the respondents themselves
redesignated the appellant and other similarly situated JFOs
as CTOs in Group-C with a lesser grade. He pointed out that
the respondents admitted that this redesignation and down-
scaling was wrong and therefore, the appellant was re-
regularised back to his original cadre as JFO, Group-B with
the pay scale of Rs. 500-900. Thereafter, the respondents
redesignated all the JFOs who were appointed from 1975-78
as Handicrafts Promotion Officers (HPOs), Group-B in the pay
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 4 of 16
scale of Rs. 550-900 (pre-revised). He invited our attention to
th
the order dated 26 June 2006 by virtue of which the
appellant stood regularised in his original regular post of JFO
Group-B. This was done with the concurrence of the Union
Public Service Commission (UPSC). As the appellant was
originally appointed as a JFO, Group B, he needed to be
redesignated and treated as an HPO. Thereafter, the
appellant ought to have been given the benefits of promotion
in the channel of HPO.
9. Learned counsel submitted that there is a fundamental
error committed by the CAT in treating the appellant as
belonging to the cadre of CTO. He, therefore, submitted that
the CAT ought to have passed an order directing the
reconvening of the departmental promotion committee for
promoting the appellant.
10. Learned counsel pointed out the cases of respondent
Nos. 4 and 5, who were also appointed as JFOs in the pay
scale of Rs . 550-900. According to the appellant, they were
junior in service to him. Both of them were given the benefit
of redesignation as HPO and a grant of promotion in that
channel. They were promoted as Assistant Director
(Handicrafts), Deputy Director (Handicrafts) and finally as
Regional Directors (Handicrafts). He submitted that both the
officers are junior in service to the appellants.
11. He pointed out that respondents cannot defeat their own
th
order dated 4 June 1979, by which all JFOs appointed from
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 5 of 16
1975-78 were redesignated as HPOs. He submitted that a
gross illegality was committed by redesignating about 60
JFOs as CTOs in a lesser grade and pay scale. He pointed out
that JFOs who have been redesignated as HPOs and JFOs
who were down-graded as CTOs were still maintaining a
th
common list of seniority. He pointed out the order dated 16
May 1997 and submitted that when, by that order, the
appellant was removed from the cadre of CTO and was placed
in the cadre of JFO, it was incumbent for the respondents to
th
give benefits of the order dated 4 June 1979 to the appellant.
The learned counsel relied upon communication issued by the
nd
respondents on 22 August 2000, which was addressed to
the UPSC. In the said communication, respondents admitted
that the appellant belongs to the category of CTOs who were
redesignated from the post of JFOs Group-B, along with 45
others. It was admitted that they needed to be regularised
and brought back to the designation and cadre of JFO. He
relied upon the order passed in OA No. 2921 of 1997 by the
CAT. He submitted that the action of the respondents in
denying the benefit of the post of HPO to the appellant was
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
The submission of learned counsel appearing for the
12.
respondents is that the JFOs in the carpet scheme and the
JFOs in the marketing scheme were two separate cadres
having separate nature of jobs. These two schemes were
functional under the office of the Development Commissioner
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 6 of 16
(DC, Handicrafts). Learned counsel pointed out that JFOs
appointed in the carpet scheme were called JFO (Carpet
Scheme), and JFOs who were appointed in the marketing
scheme were called JFO (Marketing Scheme). He pointed out
that the JFOs in the carpet scheme were redesignated as
th
CTOs under an order dated 15 February 1978. The JFOs in
the marketing scheme were redesignated as HPOs by the
th
order dated 4 June 1979. He submitted that the work done
by JFOs (Carpet Scheme) and JFOs (Marketing Scheme) was
completely different. Learned counsel submitted that the
th
appellant was originally appointed on an ad-hoc basis on 15
July 1976 as a JFO (Group B Non-Gazetted) in the scale of
Rs. 550-900 in the Carpet Weaving Centre, Jalalpur District,
Varanasi (U.P.). The exercise of redesignation of JFOs (Carpet
Scheme) to CTOs was done with a view to regularise the
employment of the appellant and similarly situated
individuals. The appellant accepted his redesignation as per
the option he had chosen. The employment of the appellant
th
was regularised by the order dated 26 June 2006 as a CTO
on the basis of recommendations of the UPSC, and his
services continued till December 2013 on being
superannuated. The learned counsel pointed out that the
th
carpet scheme was closed with effect from 12 April 2004,
except in relation to Jammu & Kashmir.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents drew
our attention to the order dated 2nd December 2008 in
Original Application No. 2351 of 2007. He pointed out that a
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 7 of 16
direction was given to regularise the appellant as well as
similarly situated persons in the available regular vacancies of
CTOs and consider their cases for promotion. He submitted
that in terms of the said order, the appellant was granted the
benefit of three financial upgradations (ACPs and MACP),
making his pay scale equivalent to that of the Regional
Director (Handicrafts), which is the highest post on promotion
in the office of Deputy Director, Handicrafts. Learned counsel
pointed out that the appellant and similarly situated persons
were granted grade pay of Rs 7600 (PB-3) in the pay scale of
15600-39100. However, JFOs (Marketing Scheme) who had
been designated as HPOs did not get the benefit of grade pay
of Rs 7600 on the grant of financial upgradation. He,
therefore, submitted that no interference was called for with
the orders of the CAT.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
th
14. The order of appointment of the appellant is of 15 July
1976, appointing him as JFO (Group-B Non-Gazetted) in the
pay scale of 550-25-750-30-900 in the Carpet Weaving
Training Centre. The appointment order stated that it was a
temporary appointment under a Plan Scheme. By the order
th
dated 15 February, 1978, the respondents redesignated all
the JFOs (Group B) in the pay scale of Rs. 550-900 in the
existing Carpet Weaving Training Centres as Carpet Training
Officers (CTOs) – (Group C Non-Gazetted), in the pay scale of
Rs. 550-20-650-25-800. Thus, CTOs, including the
appellant, were downgraded.
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 8 of 16
th
15. What is important is the order dated 4 June 1979,
which reads thus:
“In exercise of the powers vested in the
Development Commissioner for
Handicrafts, All India Handicrafts Board,
as Head of Department, sanction is
hereby accorded to re- designate the
posts of Junior Field Officers in the
scale of pay of Rs. 550-25-750-EB-30-
900 in the All India Handicrafts Board,
as Handicrafts Promotion Officers with
effect from 12th May, 1979.
The services rendered by the persons
concerned in the posts of Junior Field
Officers in the All India Handicrafts Board
will count for all purposes including
seniority, leave, increment, confirmation
etc. in the posts of Handicrafts Promotion
Officers.”
(emphasis added)
th
16. Then comes the order of this Court dated 13
September 1994 passed in the case of Sushil Kumar Sehgal
v. Union of India in C.A. No.3009 of 1989. This order was in
the case of the appellant who had joined service as a
temporary JFO and was designated as HPO in an ad hoc
capacity in July 1979. This Court held that an employee
cannot be treated as an ad hoc employee for such a long time.
It was directed that the appellant therein shall be treated as a
regular substantive holder of the post of HPO.
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 9 of 16
th
17. The order dated 16 May 1997 modified the earlier order
th
dated 15 February 1978 by which the appellant and other
JFOs were redesignated and downgraded as CTOs. The order
th
dated 16 May 1997 is very material, which reads thus:-
“In partial modification of this office
order No. 20/16(10)/78-AD. II dated
15.2.1978, sanction of President is
hereby accorded to the restoration of
the scale of pay of Rs. 550-900 in
Group 'B' w.e.f. 1.3.1978, purely on
personal basis, to those officers only
who were holding the post of JFOs in
Carpet Scheme prior to 1.3.1978 and
whose posts were re- designated as
C.T.O. in the scale of pay Rs. 550-800
vide order No. 20/16(10)/78-AD.II
dated 15.2.1978. All other conditions
mentioned in the order No.
20/16(10)/78-AD.II dated 15.2.1978
will remain unchanged. The status of
these CTOs will be ad-hoc and
subject to regularization by UPSC as
per rules.
This issues with the concurrence of
the Ministry of Finance vide their
Diary No. 581/FC/96 dated 8.10.96
and Department of Personnel and
Training vide their Diary No. U.O. No.
C-126/97 Part I dated 9.4.97.”
18. The order can be analysed as under:-
i. The order was applicable to those officers who were
holding the post of JFOs in the carpet scheme prior
st
to 1 March 1978 and whose posts were redesignated
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 10 of 16
as CTOs in the pay scale of Rs.550-800 vide order
th
dated 15 February 1978;
ii. Pay scale of the aforesaid category of officers was
restored in Group B in the pay scale of Rs.550-900;
The effect of the said order is that in the case of the
iii.
officers mentioned in clause (i) above, while
maintaining their designation as CTOs, the pay scale
of Rs.550-900 was restored; and
iv. The status of the CTOs was to be ad-hoc and subject
to regularisation by UPSC, as per the rules;
nd
19. Before we refer to the order dated 2 December 2008,
we must refer to the earlier orders passed in the case of the
nd
appellant. Firstly, we refer to the order dated 2 December
1999 in OA No. 2921 of 1997 passed by the CAT. The
appellant was the applicant in the said OA. This OA was
th
based on the order dated 16 May 1997. In paragraph 4 of
the said order, the CAT directed the respondents to take
prompt steps to regularise the appellant and other similarly
situated persons in the regular vacancies of CTOs and
consider their cases for promotion, subject to the availability
of vacancies in the promotional channel. The appellant did
not challenge the said order by contending that he should be
regularised as an HPO. Thus, he accepted the order directing
his regularisation in the vacancies of CTOs. In terms of the
said order, a communication was addressed by the Deputy
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 11 of 16
nd
Director (Administration) of the Ministry of Textiles on 22
August 2000 to the Secretary of UPSC. As the order of the
CAT was not complied with, a contempt petition was filed.
th
The order dated 13 March 2001 in the contempt petition
records that within three weeks, the respondents shall state
the dates from which the appellant and other similarly
situated persons will be regularised. Thereafter, the order
th
dated 26 June 2006 was issued, which reads thus:
“Consequent upon approval of UPSC vide
letter No. F. No. 4/23(1)/2000-AP-3 dated
3.6.2002 and in continuation of this office
Order No. 15(87)/93-Admn.II dated
16.5.97 the ad-hoc services of Shri R.P.
Azad, CTO (erstwhile Junior Field
Officer) is regularized w.e.f. their date
of appointment / date of joining in the
pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000 .
(emphasis added)
Thus, the appellant was regularised as CTO and not as HPO.
Even this order was not challenged.
20. The appellant again filed a contempt petition before the
CAT. In the order dated July 6, 2007, on the contempt
petition, the CAT observed that it took the respondents seven
years to comply with the first direction to regularise the
appellant, but the second direction was not complied with. A
direction was issued by the CAT to comply with the second
direction regarding the promotion of the appellant. By the
th
order dated 28 September 2007, the respondents held that
the carpet scheme was a closed scheme and therefore, the
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 12 of 16
promotion of the appellant could not be considered.
Thereafter, another original application was filed by the
appellant, being OA No. 2351 of 2007. The OA was disposed
nd
of by order dated 2 December 2008 by issuing a specific
direction to the respondents to either create promotional
avenues or extend the appellant’s financial upgradation as per
the methodology laid down under the rules.
nd
21. It is this order dated 2 December 2008, which was
subjected to challenge before the High Court. The appellant's
objection was to that part of the order by which an option was
given to either create promotional avenues or extend the
financial upgradation. The High Court in the impugned
nd
judgment noted that the order dated 2 December 1999 was
not challenged by the appellant, which directed consideration
of the appellant's case for promotion as a CTO (and not as
HPO), subject to the availability of vacancies in the
promotional channel. The High Court relied upon the order
th
dated 28 September 2007. The High Court observed that for
the promotion to the post of Assistant Director (A & C), the
CTO was the feeder cadre. As the carpet scheme was closed,
all the officials in the cadre of CTOs in the carpet scheme,
other than Jammu & Kashmir, were declared as surplus.
Therefore, the question of promotion of the appellant to a
higher post did not arise at all.
th
We have perused the communication dated 28
22.
September 2007. It is stated therein that the carpet scheme
th
was already closed as of 12 April 2004, except for Jammu
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 13 of 16
and Kashmir; as such, CTOs in the carpet scheme were
declared surplus. Therefore, the question of promoting the
appellant did not arise.
23. It is not in dispute that the appellant was appointed as a
th
JFO in Group B by order dated 15 July 1976. His post was
th
designated and downgraded to CTO by the order dated 15
th
February 1978. In the meanwhile, by the order dated 4
June 1979, all JFOs were redesignated as HPOs with effect
th
from 12 May 1979. What is most important is the order
th
dated 16 May 1997. By the said order, the pay scale of JFOs
in the carpet scheme was restored. What was restored was the
st
pay scale of Rs. 550-900 in Group B with effect from 1
March 1978. However, the designation of appellant and
others as CTOs was not changed.
th
By the order dated 16 May 1997, the status of the
24.
appellant as CTO was maintained, but the earlier pay scale of
st
Rs.550-900 with effect from 1 March 1978 was restored.
That order was challenged by him by filing OA No. 2921 of
nd
1997, which was decided by the order dated 2 December
1999, wherein a direction was issued to regularise the
appellant in the cadre of CTO. The promotional avenues
claimed by the appellant were only available to HPOs.
nd
25. The order dated 2 December 1999 of the CAT directs
the regularisation of the appellant and others in the regular
th
vacancies of CTOs. By the order dated 26 June 2006, the
respondents regularised the service of the appellant as a CTO
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 14 of 16
in the pay scale of Rs 5500-175-9000. In the further order
th
dated 6 July 2007, a direction was issued to consider the
case of the appellant for promotion by considering
promotional avenues available to CTOs. Therefore, the sum
and substance of the impugned orders is that no direction
was ever issued to treat the appellant as HPO.
nd
26. Coming back to the order dated 2 December 1999 of
the CAT, the direction was to regularise the appellant and
other similarly situated persons in the vacancies of CTOs and
consider their cases for promotional avenues in the available
vacancies in the promotional channel. This order was not
challenged.
27. The respondents have relied upon a decision of the Delhi
th
High Court dated 8 August 2007 in N.K. Asthana v. Union
of India, which holds that only JFOs under the marketing
scheme were designated as HPOs and not JFOs working in
the carpet scheme.
28. Therefore, we are unable to issue directions to consider
the appellant as HPO and grant him further promotion.
However, it is discernible from the materials on record that
the appellant was given the benefit of MACP by the
respondents as per the second option given by the CAT in the
nd
order dated 2 December 2008.
29. Hence, we are unable to interfere with the impugned
judgment.
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 15 of 16
30. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
..……………………..J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
.……………………..J.
(Ujjal Bhuyan)
New Delhi;
May 20, 2025
Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 16 of 16