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

dated 2

nd

December 2008 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on an original application filed

by the appellant.

2.The appellant was appointed on 15

th

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

Weaving Training Centre, Jalapur, District Varanasi, which is

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.

3.With effect from 1

st

March 1978, under the orders of the

Government of India dated 15

th

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

the order of the All India Handicrafts Board dated 4

th

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.

4.The Government of India in partial modification of the

order dated 15

th

February 1978, by the order dated 16

th

May

1997, directed that the officers who were holding the post of

Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 Page 2 of 16

JFOs in the carpet scheme prior to 1

st

March 1978 and whose

posts were redesignated as CTOs in the pay scale of Rs.550-

800 vide order dated 15

th

February 1978 shall be accorded

restoration of pay scale of Rs.550-900 in Group B with effect

from 1

st

March 1978. However, all conditions mentioned in

the order dated 15

th

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,

the CAT). By order dated 2

nd

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

vacancies. On 26

th

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.

6.On 6

th

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

direction to promote him. By the order dated 2

nd

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

the order dated 26

th

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

order dated 4

th

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

common list of seniority. He pointed out the order dated 16

th

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

give benefits of the order dated 4

th

June 1979 to the appellant.

The learned counsel relied upon communication issued by the

respondents on 22

nd

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.

12.The submission of learned counsel appearing for the

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

CTOs under an order dated 15

th

February 1978. The JFOs in

the marketing scheme were redesignated as HPOs by the

order dated 4

th

June 1979. He submitted that the work done

by JFOs (Carpet Scheme) and JFOs (Marketing Scheme) was

completely different. Learned counsel submitted that the

appellant was originally appointed on an ad-hoc basis on 15

th

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

was regularised by the order dated 26

th

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

carpet scheme was closed with effect from 12

th

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

14.The order of appointment of the appellant is of 15

th

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

dated 15

th

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

15.What is important is the order dated 4

th

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)

16.Then comes the order of this Court dated 13

th

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

17.The order dated 16

th

May 1997 modified the earlier order

dated 15

th

February 1978 by which the appellant and other

JFOs were redesignated and downgraded as CTOs. The order

dated 16

th

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

to 1

st

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

dated 15

th

February 1978;

ii.Pay scale of the aforesaid category of officers was

restored in Group B in the pay scale of Rs.550-900;

iii.The effect of the said order is that in the case of the

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;

19.Before we refer to the order dated 2

nd

December 2008,

we must refer to the earlier orders passed in the case of the

appellant. Firstly, we refer to the order dated 2

nd

December

1999 in OA No. 2921 of 1997 passed by the CAT. The

appellant was the applicant in the said OA. This OA was

based on the order dated 16

th

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

Director (Administration) of the Ministry of Textiles on 22

nd

August 2000 to the Secretary of UPSC. As the order of the

CAT was not complied with, a contempt petition was filed.

The order dated 13

th

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

dated 26

th

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

order dated 28

th

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

of by order dated 2

nd

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.

21.It is this order dated 2

nd

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

judgment noted that the order dated 2

nd

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

dated 28

th

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.

22.We have perused the communication dated 28

th

September 2007. It is stated therein that the carpet scheme

was already closed as of 12

th

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

JFO in Group B by order dated 15

th

July 1976. His post was

designated and downgraded to CTO by the order dated 15

th

February 1978. In the meanwhile, by the order dated 4

th

June 1979, all JFOs were redesignated as HPOs with effect

from 12

th

May 1979. What is most important is the order

dated 16

th

May 1997. By the said order, the pay scale of JFOs

in the carpet scheme was restored. What was restored was the

pay scale of Rs. 550-900 in Group B with effect from 1

st

March 1978. However, the designation of appellant and

others as CTOs was not changed.

24.By the order dated 16

th

May 1997, the status of the

appellant as CTO was maintained, but the earlier pay scale of

Rs.550-900 with effect from 1

st

March 1978 was restored.

That order was challenged by him by filing OA No. 2921 of

1997, which was decided by the order dated 2

nd

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.

25.The order dated 2

nd

December 1999 of the CAT directs

the regularisation of the appellant and others in the regular

vacancies of CTOs. By the order dated 26

th

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

dated 6

th

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.

26.Coming back to the order dated 2

nd

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

High Court dated 8

th

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

order dated 2

nd

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