W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 1 of 24

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 17.12.2025

Pronounced on: 28.01.2026

+ W.P.(C) 16769/2004 & CM APPL. 5649/2011

UOI & ORS. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Vivek Goyal, SPC with

Mr.Gokul Sharma and

Mr.Aryan Aggarwal, Advs. for

UOI

versus

KANHAIYA SINGH & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. G. Natarajan and Mr.

Akshay, Advs. with

respondents in person.

+ W.P.(C) 1541/2012

KANHAIYA SINGH .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. G. Natarajan and Mr.

Akshay, Advs. with petitioner

in person.

versus

THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF MINES & ORS

.....Respondents

Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with

Mr. Akash Mishra and Mr.

Arnav Mittal, Advs. for UOI

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

J U D G M E N T

1. W.P.(C) 16769/2004 has been filed, challenging the Order dated

02.09.2003 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 2 of 24

Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘Tribunal’)

in O.A. 2892/2002, titled Kanhaiya Singh & Anr. v. Union of India

& Ors., whereby learned Tribunal disposed of the said O.A.,

observing as under:

“7. It is clear from the observations that the

Engineering Cadre in GSI has also been

treated by the FCPC as one of the major

departments in which the Engineering

workforce is engaged and the recommendation

in para 50.45 clearly states that the

recommendation to grant functional JAG for

Executive Engineers is not confined to only

organised Group A Engineering Services but it

is made ot be given to all Engineering cadres

in the Government. In this background of the

matter, we have absolutely no hesitation in

holding that respondents have totally misread

the recommendation of FCPC which has

resulted in their conclusion to reject the claim

of the applicants. During the course of

arguments, counsel for the applicants has also

brought to our notice that Engineers similarly

placed with All India Radio and Doordarshan

under the Ministry of Information and

Broadcasting, who are also classified in the

category of GSC Group A, have been granted

non-functional Junior Administrative Grade.

Counsel for the respondents, when queried as

to why the Engineers in GSI be discriminated,

has no answer. Thus we find that the impugned

order has been passed on the basis of an

artificial and arbitrary classification, which

has no basis.

8. We accordingly quash the order and direct

the respondents to consider the case of the

applicants for the conferment of JAG non-

functional as recommended by FCPC at par

with their counterparts in the cadre of

Engineers in All India Radio and Doordarshan

who are similarly placed. This exercise should

be completed within a period of three months

W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 3 of 24

from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.”

2. W.P.(C) 1541/2012 has been filed, challenging the Order dated

23.12.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. 3919/2010, titled

Shri Kanhaiya Singh v. Union of India, whereby the learned Tribunal

dismissed the said O.A., observing as under:

“6. The respondents have clearly mentioned

that the Mechanical Engineering Service in the

Geological Survey of India is not an

‘Organised’ Group ‘A’ Services. The applicant

belongs to the said Mechanical Engineering

Service of GSI and cannot claim to have been

the member of the “Organised” Group ‘A’

Services. As per the extant guidelines and

decision of the Government of India, the NFU

is admissible only for the officers of

“Organised” Group ‘A’ Services. The

applicant has not given any proof to show that

his service belongs to one of the “Organised”

Group ‘A’ Services of Government of India. On

the other hand, the respondents have

demonstrated that the applicant belongs to the

Mechanical Engineering Service of GSI, which

is, as per the extant Recruitment Rules is not

“Organised” Group ‘A’ Service. Further, the

respondents have indicated in their counter

affidavit that the Recruitment Rules to declare

the Mechanical Engineering Service of GSI as

one of the “Organised” Group ‘A’ Services is

under consideration of the Government. As

and when the Government accepts the

proposal and declares the said service to be

“Organised”, the NFU would be admissible to

the Mechanical Engineers of the GSI and that

too only prospectively. No decision has been

taken by the Competent Authority on the said

proposal. Now, that the applicant has retired

from service, he would not be entitled to get

the benefits of the Government Office

Memorandum dated 24.04.2009 to grant him a

Non-Functional Upgradation under Pay Band -

W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 4 of 24

4. As such, no consequential benefits would

also accrue to the applicant.”

3. The issue in W.P.(C) 16769/2004 pertains to the grant of the

higher pay scale of Rs. 1200-16500 in the Non-Functional Junior

Administrative Grade (‘NFJAG’), while the issue in W.P.(C)

1541/2012 pertains to the grant of Non-Functional Upgradation

(‘NFU’). As the petitions involve common questions of law for

consideration, it is deemed appropriate to adjudicate upon them

together by way of this common Judgment. For the sake of

convenience, reference will be made to the applicants in the two O.As.

as the ‘petitioners’, and to the respondents in the two O.As. as the

‘respondents’ .

4. The brief facts giving rise to the present petitions are that the

petitioners were appointed in March 1981 as Mechanical Engineer

(Junior) in the Geological Survey of India (‘GSI’), under the

administrative control of the Ministry of Mines, through the

Combined Engineering Services Examination conducted by the Union

Public Service Commission (‘UPSC’). They joined in the then Pay

Scale of Rs. 700-1300 (now Pay Band-3 with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400)

and were subsequently promoted to the post of Mechanical Engineers

(Senior) in Pay Band-3 with Grade Pay of Rs. 6,600.

BRIEF FACTS:

5. The 5

th

Central Pay Commission (‘CPC’), while considering the

case of revision of the pay scales of the Engineering Services, recommended that the Non-Functional Selection Grade of Rs. 4500-

W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 5 of 24

5700 should be converted into a single Functional Scale of

Superintending Engineers, and the Scale of Rs. 3700-5000 should

instead be made the NFJAG for Executive Engineers. The promotion

to the said scale of Rs. 4500- 5700 was on the completion of 13 years

of service in Group ‘A’. It was also clarified that although these

recommendations were made in the context of the Central Public

Works Department (‘CPWD’), its dispensation would be available to

all Engineering cadres in the Government. These recommendations

were implemented and extended to all Organized Group ‘A’

Engineering Services vide O.Ms. dated 06.06.2000 and 20.12.2000,

issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T).

6. Relying on these recommendations of the 5

th

CPC, the

petitioners sought grant of NFJAG and made several representations

to the Ministry of Mines. However, their representations did not

succeed. Aggrieved thereby, they filed O.A. No. 141/1999 before the

learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, praying for

grant of NFJAG scale of Rs.12000-16500. The said O.A. was

disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the

petitioners’ representations.

7. The petitioners, thereafter, preferred representations dated

10.09.2001 and 12.09.2001 seeking grant of NFJAG. However, the

said representations were again rejected by the respondents vide a

Speaking Order dated 02.05.2002, on the ground that the

recommendations of the 5

th

CPC were applicable only to the

Organized Group ‘A’ Engineering Services, and the petitioners

belonged to the General Central Service Group ‘A’.

W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 6 of 24

8. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed O.A. 2892/2002 before

the learned Tribunal, seeking grant of NFJAG scale of Rs. 12000-

16500.

9. It is the case of the petitioners that though the recommendations

of the 5

th

CPC have been made in the context of the CPWD Engineers,

its benefits were dispensed to all Engineering Cadres in the

Government and were not confined only to Organized Group ‘A’

Engineering Services. Further the petitioners, like their counterparts in

CPWD, were recruited through the Combined Engineering Services

Examination conducted by the UPSC and therefore, they were equally

eligible for the grant of NFJAG, as per the recommendations of the 5

th

CPC.

10. The learned Tribunal, vide its Impugned Order dated

02.09.2003, disposed of the said O.A. with the above -quoted

observations and directed the respondents to consider the petitioners’

case for conferment of NFJAG at par with their counterparts.

11. It is the case of the respondents that, in compliance with the

said order dated 02.09.2003, the case of the petitioners was considered

in consultation with the Department of Expenditure, DoP&T and

Ministry of Law & Justice, however, it was found that it was not

possible to confer NFJAG upon the petitioners. Accordingly, vide

order dated 23.12.2003, the representations of the petitioners were

again rejected. The respondents found the petitioners ineligible for the

conferment of NFJAG on the grounds as under:

“(i) The recommendation of the Fifth Central

Pay Commission regarding extension of the

W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 7 of 24

non-functional JAG is applicable only to

Organized Group 'A' Engineering Service as

prescribed in Department of Personnel &

Training's Office Memorandum N0.22/1/2000-

CRD dated 6th June, 2000.

(ii) The Engineers of the AIR and Doordarshan

belong to an organized Group 'A' Engineering

Service. Viz Indian Broadcasting Engineering

Service (as per the list of 49 organized

services indicated in para 8.53 read with

Annexure 8.1. of Fourth Central Pay

Commission's report) whereas the applicants

do not belong to any such organized service.

(iii) The Geological Survey of India is inter

alia, being catered by the major discipline of

Geology (having a strength of 1720 of Group

'A' Officer) which is treated as isolated cadre

(Unorganised service) even though they come

through the Geologists Examination conducted

by the UPSC. The Geologists are being

granted Non- functional Selection Grade as in

the case of applicant's disciplines at Direct

level after entering into 14th year of group 'A'

service in accordance with the provision

contained in the Department of Personnel &

Training Office Memorandum No.19/1/86- PP

dated the 14th August, 1987. When the major

discipline are not considered as organized

service in the Geological Survey of India, it

would be anomalous to consider a small

support service having total strength of 34

Group 'A' officers, as organized service.

Further, grant of Non- functional JAG to

Mechanical Engineers in accordance with the

provisions of the aforesaid Department of

Personnel & Training O.A. dated 6.6.2000 will

lead to discrimination vis-a-vis other

disciplines like Geology, Geophysics and

Geochemistry etc.

(iv) In case any group of Engineers have been

granted Non functional JAG in violation of the

provisions of aforesaid O.M. dated 6.6.2000

any other group of Engineers cannot seek

relief under equity clause and that the equality

clause enshrined under Article 14 of the

W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 8 of 24

Constitution of India can not be invoked where

its foundation is based on illegality. This is in

line with the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court report JT 2000(5) SC 389 (State of

Bihar Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh): 1997 (3)

SCC 3212 (State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ram

Kumar Mann) : 2003 (5) SCC 437 (UOI &

Ors. Vs. International Trading Company)

wherein the Apex Court has considered the

concept of negative equality in detail.”

12. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed a Contempt Petition,

being C.P. 96/2004 in O.A. 2892/2002, before the learned Tribunal,

contending non- compliance of its order dated 02.09.2003.

13. Vide order dated 24.05.2004, the learned Tribunal found the

action of the respondents of rejecti ng the petitioners’ representations

vide the above order dated 23.12.2003, to be deliberate disobedience

and hence, it was held to be ‘clearly contemptuous’ . It was also

observed that, since the respondents did not challenge the order of the

learned Tribunal before a higher forum, it had attained finality.

Accordingly, three weeks’ time was granted to the respondents to

comply with the directions made in the said o rder of the learned

Tribunal.

14. Consequently, the respondents extended the recommendations

of the 5

th

CPC to the petitioners, subject to the final decision in the

Writ Petition, being W.P.(C) 16769/2004, which was filed by the

respondents in the meantime.

15. The Contempt Petition was, accordingly, disposed of vide order

dated 20.06.2004. However, the NFJAG benefit in the scale of

Rs.12000-16500 was extended to the petitioners, with effect from

W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 9 of 24

24.10.2000, and not with effect from 01.01.1996. In view of this, this

Court, vide interim order dated 12.12.2006 in W.P.(C) 16769/2004,

directed the respondents to grant the benefit of NFJAG to the

petitioners with effect from 01.01.1996, subject to the final outcome

of the petition.

16. Consequently, in compliance with the said Order, the petitioners

were granted the benefits of NFJAG with effect from 01.01.1996, vide

order dated 12.04.2007. The Special Leave Petition, being S.L.P(C)

no. 12030/2007, was filed by the respondents before the Supreme

Court against the said interim Order dated 12.12.2006, and the same

was also dismissed vide Order dated 08.02.2010 .

17. During the pendency of this petition and after his

superannuation on 31.08.2007, the petitioner no. 1, relying on the

DoP&T O.Ms. dated 24.04.2009, 21.05.2009, and 25.09.2009, filed

O.A. 3919/2010 before the learned Tribunal, seeking re-fixation of his

pay by grant of NFU in the Pay Band-4 and Grade Pay of Rs.8,000

with effect from 01.07.2006, and Grade Pay of Rs. 10,000 with effect

from 26.10.2009.

18. It is the case of the petitioner no.1 that the 6

th

CPC

recommended grant of NFU to Organized Group ‘A’ Service Officers

and that such recommendations are applicable to the Group ‘A’

Engineering Cadres working in GSI. However, the learned Tribunal

dismissed his O.A. vide the Impugned Order dated 23.11.2011, with

the above quoted observations.

19. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner no. 1 filed W.P.(C) 1541/2012,

seeking re-fixation of his pay by grant of NFU.

W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 10 of 24

20. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

Engineers in All India Radio and Doordarshan, under the Ministry of

Information and Broadcasting, belong to an Organized Group ‘A’

Service and the petitioners are similarly placed. Therefore, the learned

Tribunal had rightly drawn similarity between the petitioners’ cadre

and the Engineers of All India Radio and Doordarshan, and directed

the respondents to consider the case of petitioners at par with their

counterparts.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

21. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 5

th

CPC,

in paragraph 50.45, recommends the pay scale of Rs.4500-5700/ - for

Superintending Engineers and NFJAG to Executive Engineers, in the

context of CPWD engineers, however, it covers all Engineering

Cadres in the Government. Further, the grant of NFJAG is not

confined to Organized Group ‘A’ Services, but is extended to all

Engineering Cadres. The said paragraph reads as under:

“50.45 We would, however, like to make an

exception only in the case of Superintending

Engineers. It is a fact that the Second CPC

had already established a parity between

Superintending engineers and Conservators of

Forests by granting them both the scale of Rs.

1300-1800. This parity was cemented further

by the Third CPC, which observed that "For

the post of Conservators of forests we

recommend the scale which we have

recommended for the Superintending Engineer

grade of the Central Class I Engineering

Service VIZ. Rs.1800- 2000." For the selection

grade of Conservators of Forest, the same

Commission stated that "a selection grade of

W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 11 of 24

Rs.2000- 2250 should be introduced for the

Conservator of Forests, on the same principles

as recommended for the Selection Grade in the

Central Class I Engineering Service." Between

the Third and Fourth CPCs, there was an up-

gradation of the first grade for CFs to Rs.l800-

2000. Subsequently, the Fourth CPC merged

the scales of Rs. 1800- 2000 and the Selection

Grade of Rs.2000- 2250 and gave CFs the

single functional scale of Rs.4500- 5700. The

same treatment in spirit was unfortunately not

accorded to the SEs who were given a JAG of

Rs.3700- 5000 and an NFSG of Rs.4500- 5700.

Taking into account the significant role of

engineering services in the nation- building

process and the fact that the promotion

prospects in engineering cadres are rather

bleak, we recommend that the NFSG of

Rs.4500- 5700 should be converted into a

single functional scale for Superintending

Engineers and the scale of Rs.3700- 5000

should instead be the non- functional JAG for

Exe. Engineers. However, in order to avoid too

fast a rate of promotion in certain cadres to

this grade, it is further recommended that

promotions to the scale of Rs.4500- 5700 would

be permitted only on completion of 13 years of

service in Group 'A'. Although the above

recommendation is being made in the context

of CPWD engineers, it is clarified that this

dispenstion will be available to all

Engineering cadres in the Government. ”

22. The learned counsel, relying on the Department of Personnel

and Administrative Reforms O.M. dated 31.07.1982, submits that the

Guidelines for Introduction of Non-Functional Selection Grades for

Group ‘A’ Services shall be applicable to all Organized Group ‘A’

Services. Annexure-A of the said Guidelines provides a list of Central

Civil Services Group ‘A’ which includes GSI under the Ministry of

W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 12 of 24

Steel & Mines as Group ‘A’ Service . In this regard, he also makes

reference to the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997,

notified under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, to submit that

the upgraded pay scales were applicable to all E ngineering Cadres in

the Government with effect from 01.01.1996. The learned counsel

further submits that the provisions of the Central Civil Services

(Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 were notified under Article 309 of the

Constitution, therefore, they are of a statutory nature and cannot be

modified or restricted by an O.M. of the DoP&T.

23. The learned counsel places reliance on the O.M. dated

02.08.1989 issued by the DoP&T, to submit that in terms of the

DoP&T O.M. dated 14.08.1987, the Non-Functional Selection Grade

was admissible to officers of Organized Group ‘A’ Service, however,

the benefit was extended to all seven scientific and technical streams

of GSI as they have all the characteristics of an O rganized Service.

24. He submits that the above position has been recognized by the

GSI in various documents and mere delay in framing the Rules would

not take away the status of the Mechanical Engineering Service in the

GSI as an Organized Group ‘A’ Service. In support of his arguments,

the learned counsel places reliance on the j udgments of the Supreme

Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Sri Harananda & Ors., (2019) 14

SCC 126, State of Mizoram & Anr. v. Mizoram Engineering Service

Association & Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 218, and Union of India & Ors. v.

Sudipta Lahiri, 2024 SCC Online SC 5718; of this Court in G.J.

Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2015:DHC:7281-DB, and Dr.

Subodh Jha & Ors. v Union of India & Ors., 2025:DHC4960-DB;

W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 13 of 24

and of the Karnataka High Court in Union of India & Ors. v. M.N.

Ramachandra Rao, 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 4054.

25. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

Impugned Order dated 02.09.2003 passed by the learned Tribunal, is

bad in law, and therefore, is liable to be set aside. He submits that the

matter of fitment of officers in a particular group should be left to the

discretion and expertise of Special Commissions and the same is

undertaken by specialised agencies after detailed examination of the

nature of the posts and duties. Therefore, it should not be decided by

Courts and Tribunals.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

26. The learned c ounsel submits that the learned Tribunal has

wrongly equated the petitioners with the engineers of the AIR and

Doordarshan, and held them to be Organized Group ‘A’ Services

Engineers. He submits that the learned Tribunal has also erred in

deciding upon the applicability of different pay scales to different

employees of the Government. While the engineers of AIR and

Doordarshan belong to Organized Group ‘A’ Engineering Services, the

petitioners belong to the General Central Service Group ‘A’. He

submits that the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution of

India would apply only if the persons are similarly placed, and not

when there exists a valid classification based on reasonable

differentia. Therefore, in the present case, the petitioners have been

erroneously granted the benefits of Organized Group ‘A’ Services.

W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 14 of 24

27. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to

appreciate the Speaking Order dated 23.12.2003, passed by the

respondents, whereby the representations of the petitioners were duly

considered and rejected with reasons recorded in support thereof.

28. On the issue of re-fixation of pay of petitioner no. 1 by grant of

NFU, the learned counsel for the respondents reiterates that the

petitioner did not belong to the Organized Group ‘A’ Service , so as to

be entitled to NFU in ter ms of the DoP&T O.M. dated 24.04.2009. He

submits that the petitioner fell within the Mechanical Stream, which in

fact, belonged to the General Central Service Category. In support

thereof, he placed reliance on DoP&T O.M. dated 19/20.11.2009

which provides the attributes of Organized Group ‘A’ Central

Services. He submits that the petitioner’s service does not qualify as

Organized Group ‘A’ Services in terms of the said O.M., as it fails to

meet the requirements set out in clauses (iv) to (vi) thereof. The said

clauses are reproduced as under:

“(iv) All the vacancies above JTS and upto

SAG level in such services are filled up by

promotion from the next lower grade;

(v) While a service may comprise one or more

distinct cadre(s), all such cadres should be

governed by composite Service Rules

facilitating horizontal and vertical movement

of officers of a particular cadre at least upto

SAG level. The cadre posts of an Organized

Service expressly belong to that service. The

posts not belonging to any service are

classified as General Central Service and,

therefore, an Organised Group ‘A’ Service

cannot have posts/grades classified as General

Central Service; and

W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 15 of 24

(vi) Such a service consists of two distinct

components, namely Regular Duty Posts and

Reserves. The Reserves are generally of four

types, viz (i) Probationary Reserves, (ii) Leave

Reserve, (iii) Training Reserve and (iv)

Deputation Reserve. The various types of

reserves are usually created and accounted for

in the Junior Time Scale.”

29. He further makes reference to the Ministry of Mines’ Note for

the Cabinet dated 04.10.2011 on Restructuring of the GSI, proposed to

declare the Engineering Stream of the GSI as an Organized Service,

after suitable restructuring. He also makes reference to the Ministry of

Mines Notification dated 17.05.2013, declaring the Engineering

stream of GSI as a Central Organized Service with effect from the date

of the said Notification. The said Notification provides as under:

“3. Constitution of the Geological Survey of

India Engineering Service Group 'A' In

Geological Survey of India.- (1) On and from

the commencement of these rules the

Engineering stream of GSI is hereby

constituted as Geological Survey of India

Engineering Service Group 'A' in Geological

Survey of India as a Central Organised

Service.”

30. The learned counsel submits that a Central Group Service

cannot become Organised Group ‘A’ Service unless the Cadre

Controlling Authority consciously constitutes it. In view of this, the

Engineering Services of GSI became an Organized Service only with

effect from the issuance of the Ministry of Mines’ Notification dated

17.05.2013. Since the demand for g rant of NFU from a date when the

service itself was not an Organized Service is not tenable in law,

W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 16 of 24

therefore, the prayer of the petitioner no. 1 seeking grant of NFU from

a back date is not tenable.

31. From the above narration of facts and the submissions made by

the learned counsels for the parties, the common question that needs to

be answered in the present petitions is whether the Mechanical

Engineering Branch of the GSI is an Organized Group ‘A’ Central

Service, thereby entitling the petitioners to the benefit of the NFJAG,

in terms of the recommendations of the 5

th

CPC, and the NFU, in

terms of the recommendations of the 6

th

CPC.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

32. Before we answer the above issue, we would again take note of

the fact that the petitioners succeeded in their claim for the NFJAG

before the learned Tribunal, and the said order has also been

implemented by the respondents, subject to the orders to be passed in

W.P.(C) 16769/2004. The petitioners have, however, failed in their

claim for the grant of the NFU before the learned Tribunal, resulting

in the filing of W.P.(C) 1541/2012.

33. As regards the core question of whether the Mechanical

Engineering Branch in the GSI is an O rganized Group ‘A’ Central

Service, we would start by taking note of the O.M. dated 31.07.1982,

by which the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms,

while laying down the guidelines for introduction of Non-Functional

Selection Grade in Group ‘A’ Central Services, gave a list of

Organized Group ‘A’ Central Services, which inter alia, included the

GSI under the Ministry of Steel and Mines (Department of Mines) at

W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 17 of 24

Serial No. 23 of the Annexure-A thereof. We would further take note

of the O.M. dated 16.07.1990, issued by the DoP&T, which again

gave a list of services/cadres to which N on-Functional Selection

Grade is applicable. In Annexure-A thereto, GSI under the

Department of Mines is reflected as a Group ‘A’ Service to which the

recommendations of the 4

th

CPC regarding selection grade would

apply.

34. Much reliance has been placed by the respondents on the O.M.

dated 19/20.11.2009 of the DoP&T to state that out of the six

attributes of Organized Group ‘A’ Services mentioned by the DoP&T

in the said O.M., at least three attributes appearing at serial nos. (iv)

and (vi) thereof, are not met by the E ngineering Cadre of the GSI.

However, that is not of much support to the respondents as paragraph

2 thereof specifically states that what has been stated therein are

certain basic attributes of an Organized Group ‘A’ Service, and that an

Organized Group ‘A’ Service is one which is constituted consciously

as such by the Cadre-Controlling Authorities through an established

procedure. Taking note of the same, the Supreme Court in Sri

Harananda (supra) held as under:

“23.5 So far as the submission made on behalf

of the appellants that CAPFs are not an

Organized Group A Services as they do not

satisfy two attributes out of six attributes is

concerned, it is required to be noted that the

OM dated 19- 11-2009 specifically notes that

there may be certain "minor deviations" from

the attributes listed therein and also to the

extent wherein it states that even if the listed

criteria are fulfilled, the same would not

automatically confer the status of an

W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 18 of 24

Organized Group A Service. Thus, as rightly

observed by the High Court in the impugned

judgment and order, fulfilling/compliance of

the attributes shall not be given too weightage

while deciding on the status of CAPFs.”

35. The above submission of the respondents, therefore, does not

hold much water, especially in light of the consistent stand that the

GSI is an Organized Group ‘A’ Central Service.

36. We must herein also take note of the fact that by an O.M. dated

15.05.1990, the DoP&T had also clarified that while the technical

streams of the GSI, which would include the Mechanical Engineering

Cadre, is a Group ‘A’ Service, the Financial and Administrative

Streams are not so, and, therefore, they cannot be treated as an

Organized Group ‘A’ Service. Further, by an O.M. dated 02.08.1989

issued by the DoP&T, it had again been stated that the benefit of the

NFU had been extended to all seven S cientific and T echnical Streams

of the GSI, as they all have the characteristics of an organized service,

which criterion is not fulfilled by the A dministrative and F inancial

Streams of the GSI. Therefore, consistently there had been no dispute

that the Mechanical Engineering stream of the GSI is an O rganized

Group ‘A’ Central Service.

37. In fact, the above has also been the consistent view of the

learned Tribunal as also of different Courts. In M.N. Ramachandra

Rao (supra), the Bangalore Bench of the learned Tribunal, by its order

dated 19.03.2012, had found the contention of the respondent that the

post of Director, GSI, is not an Organized Group ‘A’ Service, to be

“very strange”. It had placed reliance, inter alia, on the O.M. dated

W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 19 of 24

31.07.1982, which we have referred to hereinabove. The said decision

was partly approved by the Karnataka High Court vide its judgment in

M.N. Ramachandra Rao (supra), and we quote from the same as

under:

“10. Since all the points are interlinked with

one another, we will deal with the points

together as hereunder. The learned Additional

Solicitor General is not disputing that Official

Memorandum vide Annexure-A1 is dated 31- 7-

1982. On a perusal of Annexure-A1 and

schedule thereto, the post of the respondent is

found at SI No 23, which is characterized as

organized group. When the Union of India has

recognized the post held by the respondent as

organized group in the year 1982, it cannot

now go back from its own official

memorandum. Therefore, we are of the view

that the tribunal is justified in holding that the

post held by the respondent would also carry

30% of the duty post

11. The contention of the learned Additional

Solicitor General that though the official

memorandum was issued in the year 1982, the

same has not been given effect to and that

there was no demand by the respondent,

cannot be a ground to hold the post held by the

respondent a nonorganized group category.

When we hold that the post held by the

respondent is an organized group, as on the

date of issue of Annexure-A1 in the year 1982,

15% of the duty post was reserved for the

benefit of the post held by the respondent. It is

also not in dispute that subsequently, 15% has

been enhanced to 30%. The said amendment

would always enure to the benefit of the

respondent. Therefore, we do not find any fault

with the order of the tribunal in directing the

petitioners herein to consider the case of the

respondent on merit to extend 30% duty post

for the post held by the respondent.”

W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 20 of 24

38. The Special Leave Petition against the said judgment of the

Karnataka High Court, that is, SLP (C) 16461/2014, was dismissed by

the Supreme Court vide its order dated 17.10.2014.

39. Relying on the above O rder, the High Court of Meghalaya in

Union of India & Ors. v. Dr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, 2022 SCC

OnLine Megh 56, observed as under:

“5. It is submitted on behalf of the

respondent herein that the view taken by the

Tribunal is supported by a Karnataka High

Court judgment rendered on April 21, 2014 in

WP No. 45591 of 2012 (Union of India vs.

M.N. Ramachandra Rao). The respondent also

asserts that the relevant judgment in MN.

Ramachandra Rao has been left undisturbed

by the Supreme Court following a petition for

special leave to appeal against the order of

April 21, 2014 passed by the Karnataka High

Court. The respondent submits that there can

now be no denial of the dues of the respondent

in terms of such order of the Karnataka High

Court.

“6. Accordingly, and since adequate

reasons have been given in the relevant order

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,

no interference is called for. However, it is

made clear that the relief the respondent

herein will be entitled to will be confined to

the legal position as indicated in the

Karnataka judgment, and not beyond.”

40. In Sudipa Lahiri (supra), the High Court of Meghalaya had

again disposed of a petition based on the above order of the Bangalore

Bench of the learned Tribunal and the judgment of the Karnataka High

Court. The Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave Petition, being

SLP (C) 20026/2022, in challenge thereto, by observing as under:

“3. We have further perused the order dated

W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 21 of 24

14

th

March, 2022 and we find that the present

matter was disposed of in the same terms as in

the order dated 14

th

March 2022. There was

no occasion or, justification for the Union of

India to have challenged the said order by way

of this Special Leave Petition.

4. The present petitions are sheer abuse of the

process of law. The petitioners are cautioned

not to file such frivolous petitions in future.”

41. The Supreme Court, in fact, imposed costs on the respondents

for continuing to re-agitate the same stale issues in different

proceedings.

42. Therefore, we fail to appreciate how the respondents still

maintain that the Mechanical Engineering Cadre of the GSI is not an

Organized Group ‘A’ service.

43. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted

that the Recruitment Rules ( in short, ‘RRs’) for the Mechanical

Engineering Cadre were notified by the Ministry of Mines only on

17.05.2013 and, inter alia, provide that the Engineering cadre will be

an Organized Group ‘A’ Service. He submits that the said RRs are

effective only from the date of the notification, therefore, the

Mechanical Engineering Cadre of the GSI was not an O rganized

Group ‘A’ Service prior to the notification.

44. We are not impressed with the above submission.

45. As noted hereinabove, since 1982, it had been recognised that

GSI is an Organized Group ‘A’ Service. The only exception sought to

be carved out from the same was in respect of the Administrative and

Financial Cadres of GSI. A recognition of this fact by way of the RRs

dated 17.05.2013, therefore, would not mean that the Mechanical

W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 22 of 24

Engineering Cadre will become an Organized Group ‘A’ Service only

from that date. In fact, we would also take note of the RRs titled

‘Geological Survey of India (Group A and Group B posts) (Second

Amendment) Rules, 1984’, which provide that the posts of Director

(Mechanical Engineering), Mechanical Engineer (Senior), and

Mechanical Engineer (Junior) are General Central Service Group ‘A’

Gazetted posts.

46. In this regard, we may also make a reference to the judgment of

the Supreme Court in Mizoram Engineering Service Association

(supra), wherein the Supreme Court rejected a similar plea by

observing 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

W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 23 of 24

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.”

47. For the above reasons, and following the judgment of the

Karnataka High Court, as approved by the Supreme Court in M.N.

Ramachandra Rao (supra), and the other judgments referred by us

herein above, we hold that the Mechanical Engineering Cadre of the

respondent is an Organised Group ‘A’ Service and that the petitioners

were entitled to the NFJAG as also the NFU benefits under the 5

th

and

the 6

th

CPC, respectively.

48. The Order dated 02.09.2003 of the learned Tribunal is,

therefore, approved, and the W.P.(C) No. 16769/2004 is hereby

dismissed. At the same time, the Impugned Order dated 23.12.2011 of

the learned Tribunal is hereby set aside, and the W.P.(C) No.

1541/2012 is allowed.

49. The petitioner no. 1 is held entitled to grant of the NFU in terms

of the O.M. dated 24.04.2009 read with the O.M. dated 25.09.2007 of

the DoP&T. The consequential benefits of the same shall be released

by the respondents to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks

from today, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

50. We find that, in spite of the O rder dated 22.04.2024 passed by

the Supreme Court, imposing costs on the respondents for re -agitating

issues which already stood settled, the same arguments were reiterated

before us with full vehemence. We, therefore, impose costs on the

W.Ps.(C) 16769/2004 & 1541/2012 Page 24 of 24

respondents of Rs.25,000/-, to be paid to each of the petitioners within

a period of eight weeks from today.

51. The petitions, along with the pending application, are disposed

of in the above terms.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

MADHU JAIN, J.

JANUARY 28, 2026 /rv/Yg