UOI & Anr. v. Kiran Pal Singh

17. Thus the earlier matter came up in reference to the Full Bench. The Full Bench after hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion:- “In our considered opinion, for the reasons already given by the Division Bench in its order dated 16.10.2001 in cases where the equivalence of two posts is established in terms of the criteria laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in SI Roop Lal‟s case (Supra) deputationist cannot be denied the benefits of the service rendered by him on an equivalent post in his parent department even if he had been informed at the time of his permanent absorption that he would not be granted that benefit and he accepted that position. The reference is answered accordingly.”

18. So now the only question to be seen before this Court is whether the post of Constable in CRPF is equivalent to the post of SA(G) in IB or not. In this regard we may mention that the Full Bench has also noted down that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in para 17 of their judgment that equivalency of two posts was not be judged by the sole fact of equal pay. Facts to determined equivalency were:-

(i) the nature of duties of the post;

(ii) the responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charges held or responsibilities discharged;

(iii) the minimum qualifications if any prescribed for recruitment to the post; and

(iv) the salary of the post.

19. In the light of these observations of the Full bench we have to consider whether the post of Constable in CRPF is equivalent to the post of SA (G) or not. The four points criteria, as mentioned in the Full Bench pertaining to the determination of equivalency is, as under:-

(i) the nature and duties of the post;

(ii) responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged;

(iii) the minimum qualifications if any prescribed for recruitment to the post; and

(iv) the salary of the post.

20. As regards the nature and duties of the post, the responsibilities and powers discharged and qualifications are concerned, the counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no dispute with regard to point Nos. 1,[2] and 3. The respondents have rejected the claim of seniority on the ground that the salary of the applicant as a Constable in CRPF is less that the salary of SA(G). That could not have been taken into consideration when there is no dispute about the first three points. Besides that the applicant has also referred to a memo dated 20.01.1986 issued by the Department of IB, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India where it is stated that equivalent post of SA in the IB Headquarters is that of Constable. This memo in the last says as under:- “In this regard to deputationist SA(G) from Central Police Organizations, if the persons concerned draw salary in the scale of 225-308, he may be declared as Group „C‟, while those drawing salary in the pay scale of Rs.210-270 may be treated as Group „D‟.”

21. The reading of the entire memorandum would go to show that the IB recruits SA on deputation basis but the fact that equivalent post of SA in the IB in the police organization is Constable. But as regards their classification whether they belong to Group „C‟ or Group „D‟ is concerned, depending upon their salary they could be treated as Group „C‟ or Group „D‟. Thus it is to be seen whether they are Group „C‟or Group „D‟ but there is no denial to the fact that the equivalent to the post of SA in these organization is constable. There is no dispute about the basis qualifications for entering into the service and about the nature of duties and responsibilities. So the only question is of salary. To that extent we may mention that the observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Roop Lal‟s case is quite relevant. In that case the petitioner an employees working with BSF was absorbed in the Delhi Police and while fixing his seniority in Delhi Police, service rendered by him was not taken into consideration on the ground that the pay scale of SI in Delhi Police was not equivalent to that of BSF so he was not entitled to count his seniority. This plea of the department was repelled and the view taken by the Tribunal based on the respondents plea also did not find favour with the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and since in this case also the department had taken the plea that because of the pay scales the post of Constable in CRPF is not equivalent to SA(G) he is not entitled to count seniority, which cannot be accepted and Full Bench had given a clear direction to the extent that if equivalence of post is established then the deputationists cannot be deprived of the seniority on equivalent post even at the time of his permanent absorption.

22. Shri Sinha appearing for the respondents submitted that since the option of the applicant was taken before being absorbed and he was informed that he would not be given the benefit of past service so he cannot claim. But in our view this contention of this learned counsel for the respondents has already been repelled by the Full Bench as they had held that if the equivalence of post is held then a deputationist cannot be denied the benefit on a equivalent post in his parent department if he had been informed at the time of permanent absorption that he was not eligible and he accepted that position. So the plea urged by Shri Singh is contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench in this particular case and as such the same cannot be sustained.”

8. The Tribunal in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of SI Roop Lal (Supra) concluded that for the purpose of seniority in the borrowing department on absorption, it is necessary that the following aspects need to be met before the seniority of the parent office is granted to a government servant.

(i) The nature of duties of the post;

(ii) Responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged;

(iii) The minimum qualifications if any prescribed for recruitment to the post;

(iv) The salary of the post.

9. The Tribunal has noted that as regard the nature of duties of the post; the responsibilities and powers discharged and qualifications are concerned, the same are pari materia. In fact the petitioner herein has rejected the claim of the seniority of the respondent only on the ground that the salary of the respondent in CRPF is less than the salary of the SA(G). In this regard it was stated that the salary of the deputationist as SA(G) from Central Police Organizations, if the Constable draw salary in the scale of 225-308, he is placed in Group „C‟, while a Constable from CPO, who is drawing salary in the pay scale of Rs.210-270 he is treated to be in Group „D‟. On this basis it was contended that the salary is not the same.

10. We find that the Tribunal has relied upon a memo dated January 20, 1986 issued by the Department wherein it is stated that equivalent post of SA in the IB Headquarters is that of Constable. In so far as the pay-scale is concerned as noted in paragraph 21 of the order dated August 9, 2003, the Tribunal held that the case on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner is relevant only for the purpose of classification whether the Constable belongs to Group „C‟ and Group „D‟ and nothing more.

11. This matter was listed yesterday when we had called upon the counsel for the respondent to place before the Court the memo dated January 20, 1986 wherein it is stated that the equivalent post of SA in the IB Headquarters is that of Constable.

12. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us the memorandum dated January 20, 1986. The same reads as under:- Memorandum

20 Jan. 1986 “1. Attention is invited to the orders issued vide MHA NO. 2/Est. (C)/71 (2)-EPV dated 26.8.85 circulated vide our Memo of even number dated 30.08.85 re-classified the post of Security Assistants in the pay scale of Rs.225-308 from Group „D‟ to Group „C‟.

2. The classifications have been sought by the outstation unites whether the deputationist Security Assistants in the Intelligence Bureau are to be treated as Group „C‟ or Group „D‟. The post of Security Assistant in the I.B. is filled on deputation partly from the Central Police Organisations and partly from the State/Union Territories police force. The equivalent post of SA in the IB in these organizations is Constable. In certain states Constables have been classified as Group „C‟ whereas in many states they are Group „D‟

3. The question has been examined in detail and it is clarified that the classification as Group „C‟ and Group „D‟ of the deputationist SAs should be dependent on whether Constables in their parent States are Group „C‟ or Group „D‟. In other words if the deputationist SAs from States/Administrations as have been classified as Group „C‟ in the IB also and the deputationist SAs from other states may continue to be classified as Group „D‟. In regard to deputationist SAs from Central Police Organisations, if the person concerned draw salary in the scale of Rs.225-308, he may be declared as Group „C‟, while those drawing salary in the pay scale of Rs.210-270 may be treated as Group „D‟. Sd/- (H.B.Saxena) Assistant Director”

13. From the perusal of paragraph 2 of the memorandum, it is clear that the post of SA in IB is filled partly from Central Police Organisation (CPO) and partly from the State/Union Territories Police Force. The equivalent post of SA in the IB in these organistation is Constable. It is only with regard to classification of post, the memo states that if in a CPO the Constable is drawing the salary in the pay scale of Rs.225-308, he is classified as Group „C‟ while the Constable drawing salary in the pay scale of Rs. 210-270 he is classified as Group „D‟. In fact the Tribunal has in paragraph 21 clarified that for the purpose of equivalence, the post of Constable is equivalent to the post of SA in IB Headquarters and the same has no concern in so far as the classification of post as Group „C‟ or as Group „D‟.

14. We agree with the said conclusion because both the posts have been treated as equivalent, though in given case, a Constable may be drawing a lower scale, but the same shall have a bearing on the classification of post as Group „D‟ but not on equivalence. In this regard we may also note that the Supreme Court in the case of SI Roop Lal (Supra) has in paragraph 17 held as under. It also held that if the earlier three criteria mentioned above are fulfilled then the fact that the salary of the two posts is different would not in any way make the posts not equivalent.

(iv) the salary of the post. It is seen that the salary of a post for the purpose of finding out the equivalency of posts is the last of the criterion. If the earlier three criteria mentioned above are fulfilled then the fact that the salaries of the two posts are different, would not in any way make the post `not equivalent'. In the instant case, it is not the case of the respondents that the first three criteria mentioned hereinabove are in any manner different between the two posts concerned. Therefore, it should be held that the view taken by the tribunal in the impugned order that the two posts of Sub-Inspector in the BSF and the Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police are not equivalent merely on the ground that the two posts did not carry the same pay-scale, is necessarily to be rejected. ”

15. We may state, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contested the conclusion of the Tribunal only on the ground that the pay scale of Constable (CRPF) and SA(G) (IB) are different and as such the posts are not equivalent. It follows the first three requirements have not been contested. This Court is of the view in view of the conclusion in paragraph 17 in SI Roop Lal (Supra) even if the pay-scales are different the respondent is entitled to seniority as has been granted by the Tribunal.

16. In view of the above discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and dismiss the writ petition. No costs.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J. JULY 06, 2023