IMPORTANT POINTS
It is not open to the parties to challenge a consent order or an ad invitem order.
Merely because the ‘in principle’ decision was to be placed before the Cadre Review Committee, it cannot be said that the ‘in principle’ decision contained in the O.M. dated 20.11.2003 was subject to further approval and/or no ‘in principle’ decision was taken.
DoPT and/or the Ministry of Home Affairs would not have any authority to deal with the subject with respect to services of RPF.
When Monographs of DoPT since 1986 show CAPFs as a part of Central Group “A” Services, it is not open for DoPT not to consider and/or treat the CAPFs as an Organized Group “A” Services.
CIPFs constitute Organized Group “A” Central Civil Services/Group “A” Central Civil Services.
Central Pay Commission is not authorised to define “Organized Services” or to grant such status to any service.

Headnote:Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12393 of 2013
       (a) Administration of justice – Judicial propriety – O.M. dated 20.11.2003 – ‘In principle’ decision of the DoPT for constitution of the RPF as an Organized Group “A” Central Service – Respondents before High Court not filing any counter affidavit disputing the OM – Impugned judgment and order of High Court a consent order, an ad invitem order – Not open to challenge the impugned judgment and order. (Para 10)
       (b) Interpretation of Office Memorandum – O.M. dated 20.11.2003 – Held, High Court justified in treating and/or considering the same as ‘in principle’ approval by the DoPT to the proposed constitution of the RPF as an Organized Group “A” Central Service – Merely because the ‘in principle’ decision was to be placed before the Cadre Review Committee, it cannot be said that the ‘in principle’ decision contained in the O.M. dated 20.11.2003 was subject to further approval and/or no ‘in principle’ decision was taken. (Para 11)
       (1986) 4 SCC 632 – Referred
       (c) Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules – Competent authority for RPF – Ministry of Railways opining and proposing and/or considering RPF as an Organised Group “A” Central Service right from 2001 onwards – Secondly, as per the Rules, DoPT would have jurisdiction on general questions relating to recruitment, promotion and seniority pertaining to Central Services, except Railway Services – Further, DoPT would have authority on appointment of non Indians to civil posts under Government of India, except the posts under the Department of Railways – Rules also providing that Ministry of Railways has the authority on all matters, including those relating to Railway revenues – Therefore DoPT and/or the Ministry of Home Affairs would not have any authority to deal with the subject with respect to services of RPF – Held, High Court rightly issuing Mandamus considering and/or treating the O.M. dated 20.11.2003 as ‘in principle’ decision/approval of DoPT to constitute the RPF as an Organised Group “A” Central Services and thereby directing the Appellants to take further steps for cadre structure of the RPF and finalize the Service Rules with reference to the RPF being an Organised Group “A” Central Civil Service. (Para 12, 13)
       Civil Appeal No. 9176 of 2018 – Referred
       Civil Appeals @ SLP (Civil) Nos. 35548-54 of 2015 & 13937/2016
       (d) Service conditions – CAPFs – Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) – Giving relief to Group “A” Officers facing the problem of stagnation – NFFU denied to CAPFs on ground of not being an Organized Group “A” Service – Monographs of DoPT since 1986 showing CAPFs as a part of Central Group “A” Services – Held, not open for DoPT not to consider and/or treat the CAPFs as an Organized Group “A” Services. (Para 23)
       (e) Service conditions – CAPFs – Recognition as Organized Group “A” Services – Attributes mentioned in O.M. dated 19.11.2009 – High Court rightly holding that fulfilling/compliance of the attributes shall not be given too weightage while deciding on the status of CAPFs – Held, CIPFs constitute Organized Group “A” Central Civil Services/Group “A” Central Civil Services. (Para 23)
       (f) Service conditions – CAPFs – Recognition as Organized Group “A” Services – NFFU denied to CAPFs on ground that 6th PRC did not recommend NFFU to CAPFs – Central Pay Commission not authorised to define “Organized Services” or to grant such status to any service – Held NFFU could not be denied to CAPFs on such ground more so when Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme was granted to CAPFs in 4th PRC. (Para 24)
       Facts of the case:
       all the writ petitioners are the Officers holding Group “A” posts in the Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred as to the ‘RPF’) and all of them were recruited through the Civil Services Examination conducted by the UPSC along with 15 other Group “A” Central Services, including three Group “A” Railways Services, i.e. Indian Railway Traffic Service, Indian Railway Accounts Service and Indian Railway Personnel Service.
       by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court, after having noted and considered the O.M. dated 20.11.2003, by which in principle decision was taken to constitute the RPF as OGACs, has directed that within six months the necessary cadre structure of RPF as also the Service Rules be finalized with reference to the RPF being an OGACs. The High Court has also further observed and directed the Cabinet Secretary to nominate a Nodal Officer to coordinate within the three bodies, namely, UPSC, DoPT and Ministry of Railways.
       Finding of the Court:
       It is not open to the parties to challenge a consent order or an ad invitem order.
       Merely because the ‘in principle’ decision was to be placed before the Cadre Review Committee, it cannot be said that the ‘in principle’ decision contained in the O.M. dated 20.11.2003 was subject to further approval and/or no ‘in principle’ decision was taken.
       DoPT and/or the Ministry of Home Affairs would not have any authority to deal with the subject with respect to services of RPF.
       When Monographs of DoPT since 1986 show CAPFs as a part of Central Group “A” Services, it is not open for DoPT not to consider and/or treat the CAPFs as an Organized Group “A” Services.
       CIPFs constitute Organized Group “A” Central Civil Services/Group “A” Central Civil Services.
       Central Pay Commission is not authorised to define “Organized Services” or to grant such status to any service.
       Result: Appeals and SLPs dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions (C) No.12393/2013, 35548-35554/2015 and 13937/2016. All these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 4.12.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 6314 of 2012, the Union of India and others have preferred the Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 12393/2013.

2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 3.9.2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 153 of 2013 and other allied writ petitions, the Union of India and others have preferred the present Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos.35548-35554/2015.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 15.12.2015 in Writ Petition(C) No.3529/2015, the Union of India and others have preferred the present Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No.13937/2016.

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12393 of 2013

3. The facts leading to the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12393 of 2013 arising out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 4.12.2012 in Writ Petition (C) No. 6314 of 2012, are as under.

3.1 The original Writ Petitioners – who are the RPF Officers holding Group “A” posts approached the High Court by filing the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following reliefs/prayers:
(a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to complete the formalities for constituting the RPF as an Organized Service within a definite time frame with further direction to extend the benefits by giving effect to the RPF Recruitment Rules already approved by the Respondent No. 1 as communicated vide letter dated 01.03.2005 to Respondent No. 2 and to treat Group “A” Railway Officers recruited through Civil Service Examination in all respect.
(b) Issue further direction to the Respondents to apply with retrospective effect all policy circulars to the petitioners as applicable in respect of other Group A Railway Services bringing them at par with their batch mates recruited through civil service examinations and grant promotion to the Petitioners and other similarly situated officers on that basis with all consequential benefits including the back wages.
(c) Issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records, and other/direction (including those not communication to the Petitioner, if any, by way of which the Respondents have taken a decision to initiate the process to fill any vacancy in the RPF through deputation against the statutory provisions and thereafter quash the same.
3.2 It was the case on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners that all the writ petitioners are the Officers holding Group “A” posts in the Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred as to the ‘RPF’) and all of them were recruited through the Civil Services Examination conducted by the UPSC along with 15 other Group “A” Central Services, including three Group “A” Railways Services, i.e. Indian Railway Traffic Service, Indian Railway Accounts Service and Indian Railway Personnel Service. According to the Writ Petitioners, as per the Gazette Notification published by the Government of India, based on which the UPSC conducts an examination, these Railway services have been kept at par with each other. According to the original Writ Petitioners, the notification and the offer of appointment as well as the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (for short ‘the RPF Act, 1957’) clearly stipulate the Officers of RPF as Railway Servants with stipulation that in addition to the Indian Railway Establishment Code applicable to the Railway servants, the Officers of RPF will be governed by the provisions contained in the RPF Act and RPF Rules, 1959 as well as the new RPF Rules, 1987, Recruitment Rules 1981 and 1994.
3.3 It was the case on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners that in spite of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 119

Cases Referred (1)