Back
2017 Supreme(SC) 1246
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – Appellant
VERSUS
SHRI HARANANDA & ORS. - Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12393 of 2013, S.L.P.(C)...CC 5735-5740, 5742, 5743 of 2016, S.L.P.(C) No.13937 of 2016, S.L.P.(C) Nos.35548-35554 of 2015
Decided on : 06-04-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ranjit Kumar, S.G., Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv., Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv., Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv., Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR, Mr. Pankaj Pandey, Adv., Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Ms. Supriya Juneja, AOR, Mr. Sidharth Mehta, Adv., Ms. Mehaak Jaggi, Adv., Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR
For the Respondents, Mr. Amit Kumar, AOR, Mr. Rekah Palli, Sr. Adv., Ms. Punam Singh, Adv., Mr. Nikhil Palli, Adv., Ms. Shruti Munjal, Adv., Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR, Mr. Devashish Bharuka, AOR, Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vabhar Kalra, Adv., Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri, Adv., Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Choudhary, Adv., Ms. N. Annapoorani, AOR, Mr. Ankur Chhibbar, Adv., Mr. Anil Kumar Gautam, AOR, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR, Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, AOR, Mr. Sidharth Mahajan, Adv., Ms. Nibita Singh, Adv., Ms. Ankita Singh, Adv., Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv., Mr. Rajeev Jha, Adv., Mr. Nagendra Rai, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vishwajit Singh, AOR, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Adv., Mr. Abhijit Sunny, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority responsible for conferring benefits and the classification and cadre review of Group 'A' Central Civil Services.
Headnote:
Delay in filing the application for substitution is condoned - Union of India - Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, Border Security Force Act, 1968, Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007 and Indo Tibetan Border Police Force Act 1992 - The court discussed the jurisdiction/authority under various acts and sections, the classification of Civil Services, cadre review of Group 'A' Central Civil Services, and the consolidated guidelines on cadre review of Central Group 'A' Services. The court also considered the nature of work and duty chart of the forces in question.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the jurisdiction/authority under various acts and sections, the classification of Civil Services, cadre review of Group 'A' Central Civil Services, and the consolidated guidelines on cadre review of Central Group 'A' Services. The court also considered the nature of work and duty chart of the forces in question.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the High Court could not have created Organized Group 'A' Services solely based on notes, correspondences, and letters issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India. The court also directed the Union of India to reconsider the grievances of the respondents and take a decision within twelve weeks.
Issues: The issues considered by the court included the classification of Civil Services, the authority responsible for conferring benefits, and the nature of work of the personnel in question.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, Border Security Force Act, 1968, Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007 and Indo Tibetan Border Police Force Act 1992, the classification and cadre review of Group 'A' Central Civil Services, and the consolidated guidelines on cadre review of Central Group 'A' Services.
Final Decision: The court allowed the interlocutory applications for substitution and setting aside the abatement, directed the rectification of the cause title, and instructed the Union of India to reconsider the grievances of the respondents and take a decision within twelve weeks.
ORDER :
1. Delay in filing the application for substitution is condoned.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The interlocutory applications for substitution and setting aside the abatement stand allowed. Let the cause title be rectified accordingly.
4. Though an adjournment was sought on behalf of the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents in S.L.P.(C) No.35548-35554 of 2015, as the other counsel appearing in the other special leave petitions have submitted that they may be heard in the matter, we thought it appropriate to have an idea about the case.
5. It has been highlighted by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General of India appearing for the appellant, the Union of India and Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing in S.L.P.(C) No......CC 5738/2016, which has been preferred on behalf of the Indian Police Services Central Association, that the High Court could not have been able to create Organized Group ‘A’ Services on the basis of certain notes, correspondences and the letters issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India, for it is the Home Department which has the jurisdiction/authority under the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, Border Security Force Act, 1968, Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007 and Indo Tibetan Border Police Force Act 1992.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, would contend that the Union of India which was represented by the Department of Personnel Ms. Sushma Suri, AORand Training in the matters relating to the cases which were filed on behalf of the BSF, CISF, CRPF, ITBP and SSB and the Railways, had entered appearance along with DoPT in the
Railway Protection Force matter.
7. In the course of hearing, our attention has been drawn to the report filed by the Second Administrative Reforms Commission submitted in the year 2008. The said Commission after writing a preface on various aspects has emphasized on the need for reforms. Our attention has been drawn to paragraph 4.2.3. The said paragraph reads as follows:-
“4.2.3. The various Civil Services at the Union and State levels can be classified in several different ways. Firstly, the Civil Services can be categorized into three broad groups – Central Civil Services, All India Services and the State Civil Services. The Central Services function under the Union government and are generally engaged in administering subjects which are assigned to the Union under the Constitution, whereas the All India Services are common to the Union and the States and the State Services function only under the State Governments. Secondly, the Union and State Services can be classified into Group A, B and C categories based on their role and responsibilities. Thirdly, these services can also be classified into technical and non-technical services.”
8. It has also been submitted that the said report states about a table which incorporates all the Organized Group ‘A’ Central Civil Services in Government of India. In item Nos.15, 22, 23, 24 and 25, the services which find place are Railway Protection Force, Border Security Force, Central Industrial Security Force, Central Reserve Police Force and Indo Tibetan Border Police respectively. We have also been shown that the said list was drawn having its source from DoPT.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents have also drawn our attention to the cadre review of Group ‘A’ Central Civil Services done by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training in 2010. In the preface, it has been mentioned as follows:-
“The Department of Personnel & Training is the nodal agency of the Government of India for personnel management policies. One of the important functions envisaged for the Department concerns the periodical review of cadres and various organized Group 'A' Central Services. It renders advice to cadre con
