S.N.Terdal vs The Secretary Department Of Legal ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 3432 Del

       *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                              Judgment delivered on 22.05.2012

+      W.P.(C) 3064/2012 & CMs 6603-04/2012

S.N.TERDAL                                                      ..... Petitioner
                                      versus

THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS AND ORS
                                          ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner   : Petitioner-in-person.

For the Respondent   :Mr. Rajesh Katyal for R-1 & 2.
                     Mr. Naresh Kaushik for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                             JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner who appears in person is aggrieved by the order dated 15.11.2011

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA

No.2851/2011. The petitioner's said original application was dismissed by the said

Tribunal.

2. The petitioner was aggrieved by the fact that on de-merger of the cadre of

Government Counsel, he has been placed once again in the cadre of Government

Advocates which was the cadre to which he belonged prior to the merger of three

separate cadres namely Government Advocates, Legal Advisors and Law Officers

of the Law Commission. According to the petitioner, once the merger had taken

place, the distinction between the three cadres got obliterated and all trappings of

his past service in a different cadre were washed away. This being the position,

according to the petitioner, when the de-merger took place and the cadre of

Government Counsel was trifurcated into the cadres of Government Advocates,

Legal Advisors and Law Officers of the Law Commission, he ought to have been

given an option for selecting a cadre of his choice. Since that option was not given

and he was placed in the cadre of Government Advocates, he was aggrieved and it

is for this reason that he had filed the original application before the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal after having considered the arguments advanced by the

petitioner as also after considering the submissions made on behalf of the

respondents, came to the conclusion that there was nothing wrong in the petitioner

being placed in the cadre of Government Advocates after de-merger of the cadre of

Government Counsel.

4. We may say straightaway that we do not find any infirmity either in the

reasoning adopted by the Tribunal or in the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal.

The facts of the case are simple. The petitioner was working as a Government

Advocate in the cadre of Government Advocates. At that point, there were three

cadres, namely, the cadres of Government Advocates, Legal Advisors and Law

Officers of the Law Commission. With effect from 28.12.2005, these three cadres

got merged into one cadre known as the cadre of Government Counsel. The

position continues till 2008 when, w.e.f. 10.05.2008, the merged cadre of

Government Counsel, for whatsoever reason, was trifurcated into the original three

cadres of Government Advocates, Legal Advisors and Law Officers of the Law

Commission. On such de-merger, the petitioner was placed in his original cadre of

Government Advocates. We see nothing wrong with this procedure, particularly,

when the petitioner has neither challenged the merger nor the de-merger itself.

5. The petitioner submits that an option should have been given to the

petitioner at the time of de-merger. This implies that an option should have been

given to all the persons in the merged cadre of Government Counsel before they

were allocated the trifurcated cadres. That would result in administrative chaos

because there might be situations where the number of people who opt for a

particular cadre cannot be accommodated in that cadre and vice versa. It is also not

the case of the petitioner that persons who were junior to him in the Government

Advocates cadre prior to merger had become senior to him after de-merger. Their

inter-se seniority within the cadre has been maintained. The process of de-merger

has been carried out on the basis that the persons in the original cadre have been

allocated the same de-merged cadre. In fact, the petitioner has not been able to

point out any instance of there being any interchange in the cadres at the point of

de-merger. This position has also been confirmed by the learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the respondent.

6. The petitioner sought to place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court

in the case of K. Ravindranath Pai and Another v. State of Karnataka and

Another: (1995) Supp 2 SCC 246. The Tribunal has dealt with this decision in

detail. We have also examined the decision of the Supreme Court in K.

Ravindranath Pai (supra) and find that the same is distinguishable on facts. In the

case before the Supreme Court, there were earlier two cadres, one was 'graduate

engineers' and the other was 'non-graduate Supervisors'. The appellants before the

Supreme Court were in the cadre of non-graduate supervisors. With effect from

03.07.1969, the two cadres got merged into one cadre known as 'Junior Engineers'.

From that date, the distinction between graduate engineers and non-graduate

supervisors was removed. This position continued till 09.01.1974, when the cadre

of Junior Engineers was once again bifurcated into two cadres of Junior Engineers

(Division-I) and Junior Engineers (Division-II). The cadre of Junior Engineers

(Division-I) comprised of graduate engineers whereas the cadre of Junior

Engineers (Division-II) comprised of non-graduates. The appellants before the

Supreme Court who were originally in the cadre of non-graduate supervisors had,

in the meanwhile, obtained graduation in 1967 and 1970. But, after the de-merger,

they were placed in the category of Junior Engineers (Division-II) which was for

non-graduates. This was found to be unreasonable inasmuch as the distinction

between the two cadres after 09.01.1974 was on the basis of whether the persons

were graduates or non-graduates. Since the intelligible differentia itself was the

factum of graduation, the appellant before the Supreme Court had wrongly been

placed in the cadre of Junior Engineers (Division-II) which was meant for

non-graduates. The Supreme Court, allowing the case of the appellant and by

directing that he may be placed in the cadre of Junior Engineers (Division-I) which

was for graduates, removed this anomaly and discrimination.

7. The case of the petitioner before us is entirely different. He has not attained

any other qualification and, in any event, the trifurcation of the merged cadre of

Government Counsel had been done on the very same basis which existed prior to

the merger, i.e., on the basis of existence of three different cadres namely

Government Advocates, Legal Advisors and Law Officers of the Law Commission.

The case of the petitioner is entirely different from that of the case of K.

Ravindranath Pai (supra) and, therefore, the petitioner cannot draw any support

therefrom.

8. The petitioner was unable to point out a single legal precedent whereby the

Court held that, after merger of cadres, at the point of de-merger, the employees

had a legal right of opting for a cadre upon de-merger. As such, we find that the

petition has no merit. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is upheld.

9. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K.JAIN, J MAY 22, 2012 rb