Redesignation Of Post Doesn't Amount To Merger With Another Cadre Unless Recruitment Rules Are Amended : P&H HC

Background Facts

The petitioner was appointed as Guide in the Government Museum and Art Gallery, Sector 10, Chandigarh. The Chandigarh Administration issued instructions on 15.04.1991 for the merger of isolated posts with ministerial posts to provide employees with better career prospects. On 19.10.2001, the Administration approved the redesignation of the post of Guide as Guide-cum-Clerk, with a condition that this change would have to be incorporated in the Recruitment Rules after following the prescribed procedure.

Therefore, in compliance with the approval, the Government Museum and Art Gallery, Chandigarh, redesignated the petitioner's post as Guide-cum-Clerk by an order on 17.01.2002. As per petitioner, since the post of Guide stood merged with the Clerk cadre, he claimed parity in pay scale and benefits equivalent to Clerks, along with the right to be considered for promotion in the Clerk cadre. Later, the Chandigarh Administration issued a clarification dated 07.12.2018, which stated that there had been no merger of the post of Guide with that of Clerk because the Recruitment Rules were never amended to include the post of Guide in the Clerk cadre.

Therefore, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, for the grant of benefits of the parity of pay-scale by treating him as member of the cadre of Clerk after the post of Guide was merged into the cadre of Clerk. The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's claim on 24.12.2018. It granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the clarification order. However, the petitioner did not challenge that order.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

It was submitted by the petitioner that the respondents had completed the process of merger of the post of Guide with that of Clerk by issuing instructions on 15.04.1991. Subsequently the redesignation of the post as Guide-cum-Clerk was approved on 19.10.2001. It was argued that after the redesignation was implemented by the Museum on 17.01.2002, the petitioner became part of the Clerk cadre. Therefore, he was entitled to all benefits including parity of pay scale and promotional avenues.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondents that the post of Guide was redesignated as the post of Guide-cum-Clerk, but it was never made part of the cadre of Clerk as the rules governing the service were never amended so as to include the post of Guide in the cadre of Clerk. It was further contended that the Chandigarh Administration clarified on 07.12.2018, there was no merger of the cadre of Guide with that of Clerk.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that the petitioner's claim was based on the letter dated 19.10.2001 issued by the Chandigarh Administration, which only approved the redesignation of the post of Guide as Guide-cum-Clerk and not its merger with the Clerk cadre. It was held that necessary amendments to the Recruitment Rules were required to complete the process, which was never done. Therefore, the petitioner's contention that redesignation amounts to merger could not be accepted. It was further observed that the clarification issued on 07.12.2018 by the Chandigarh Administration stated that no merger or demerger had taken place as the rules were never amended. The petitioner did not challenge this clarification, therefore, he had accepted the stand of the Administration.

It was held by the Court that redesignation does not create any right to claim parity of pay scale, seniority, or promotion, and unless the service rules are amended, such benefits cannot be conferred. It was also held that even assuming merger had taken place, the petitioner could not claim seniority over existing Clerks, because the seniority can only be given from the date of actual merger and not retrospectively from the date of his initial appointment as Guide.

It was further noted by the court that the petitioner retired about seven years ago while continuing on the post of Guide, and he was never treated as part of the Clerk cadre during his entire service. Hence, no legal or equitable ground existed to grant the relief sought.

With these observations, it was held by the Court that the Tribunal's order dated 24.12.2018 did not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

Case Name : Narinder Pal Singh vs Central Administrative Tribunal And Ors

Case No. : CWP-7369-2019

Counsel for the Petitioner : Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate, (through V.C.)

Counsel for the Respondents : Arvind Moudgil, Senior Panel Counsel, with Isha Bhukal, Advocate, Sanjeev Ghai, Advocate