V N MEENAKSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 5 was holding a substantive post in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India as Junior Accounts Officer. He was brought on deputation to the Border Security force. He was absorbed in the organisation of Border Security Force as Joint Assistant director. Appellant is an employee under the Border Security Force. The absorption of respondent No. 5 in the post of Joint assistant Director was challenged by the appellant before the Central Administrative tribunal, inter alia, on the ground that according to the Rules in force, respondent No. 5 could not have been so absorbed. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and order, came to hold that the post which respondent no. 5 was holding in parent organisation is an analogous post to the post of Joint assistant Director and therefore, there was no illegality in the absorption of said respondent no. 5 as Joint Assistant Director. From the relevant Rules in force, at the point of time, it is clear that unless the two posts are analogous posts, it is not possible for absorption of officer from another organisation. Looking at the duties of the two different posts in question, the scale of pay which the post carries as well as the category to which the two posts belong, it is difficult for us to sustain the conclusion of the Tribunal that respondent No. 5 was holding as analogous post in the parent organisation. The Tribunal having committed error in holding that respondent No. 5 was holding an analogous post in the parent organisation, the ultimate decision gets vitiated. Having examined the relevant criteria of the two posts in question with which we are concerned, we are of the considered opinion that respondent No. 5 on the date of his absorption as Joint Assistant Director in the Border security Force was not holding an analogous post under the Comptroller and Auditor general of India and therefore, he was not entitled to be absorbed permanently in the Border Security Force The said absorption. therefore, is vitiated and must be set aside. We accordingly set aside the order of absorption of respondent No. 5 as Joint Assistant director under Border Security Force. The impugned order of the Tribunal is accordingly quashed. Since the appellant claimed to be otherwise entitled for promotion to the post of Joint Assistant Director but in the meantime has retired on superannuation his case may be considered for promotion to the post of Joint Assistant Director in accordance with law and if ultimately she is promoted to the post of Joint Assistant director then he would be entitled to the consequential enhancement in retiral benefits but will not be entitled to any arrear of salary on that score. Appeal is accordingly allowed but there will be no order as to costs.