Union of India (UOI) and Others vs Shri J.R. Chobedar

Vijender Jain, J.—This writ petition has been preferred impugning the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The respondent is working as Joint Assistant Director re-designated as Accounts Officer in the Border Security Force(for short `BSF'') in the pay scale of Rs. 2375-3500. This case has a chequered history. When the first O.A. was allowed, the appellant before us challenged the finding of the Central Administrative Tribunal and filed a WP(C) 5599/2001. The Delhi High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and the matter was remanded holding:-

''''17. In a vital issue of this nature, the learned Tribunal was obligated to take into consideration the materials brought on record of the parties to the lis but also arrive at a definite finding as to whether the Pay and Accounts Division of BSF is an organized cadre or even under CAG or CGDA. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only exercises the power of judicial review. All contentions relating to the service dispute must necessarily be addressed by the Tribunal itself at the first instance. Only in some rare cases where a grave injustice may be caused and in some cases having regard to the interest of justice, this Court may determine such questions at the first instance. Furthermore, as notice herein before, before us, the learned counsel for the parties referred to various documents which the learned Tribunal had no occasion to consider at all. We have purposely not referred thereto so that it may not be considered to be a conscious decision on our part either way.

It is in this backdrop that the whole controversy has been re-argued basically on the question as to whether Pay and Accounts Division of the Border Security Force is an organized cadre or even under CAG or CGDA.

Therefore, case was made for determination as to whether there was an organized cadre. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that in terms of the report of the Pay Commission at page 48 paragraph 11.36 of the paper book, a similar question was raised which the Commission has answered in terms of its finding at p.51 of the paper book. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, based on that finding the case was examined by the Ministry of Finance and the same was rejected vide its order dated 6th September, 1995 to the following effect:-''''With reference to his application dated 30.08.95 Shri J R Chobdar, JAD(Accounts) is informed that, Ministry of Finance did not agree to our proposal as they held that BSF Accounts Cadre is not an organized Accounts service.''

Similarly, on 7th December, 1995, the BSF, Pay and Accounts Division also taking into consideration the rejection by the Ministry of Finance disposed of the application of the respondent that it cannot be treated as an organized accounts service. On the basis of the aforesaid, it was contended before us that the finding of the learned Tribunal in the impugned order is not as per the report of the Pay Commission and BSF and there was no cadre of the Accounts Officer in the BSF and the anomaly has come-up in view of the re-structuring of the cadre. In our view the reliance by the petitioner on the letter dated 6th September, 1995(supra) is misplaced. The point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was considered in depth by the Tribunal and on the basis of the material before the Tribunal, the Tribunal gave the opinion that if certain scales were missing that will not take away the trait of the organized cadre. It was also considered that the method and manner of promotion has nothing to do with a cadre being organized or not. If it has other traits that it is a cadre comprising of reasonable number of persons, they have specific rules in this regard and there is no other factor which prompts one to conclude that it is an unorganized cadre. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in T.N. Natarajan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. in CWP 176/1979 decided on 3rd September, 1980 which also dealt with a similar controversy, it was held by the Tribunal by a reasoned order that the cadre of the respondent was an organized cadre.

We find no infirmity with the impugned order. No other point has been urged before us. We find no merit in the petition. Dismissed.