SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA SAI Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 03.12.2007 in O.A. No.1332/2007 whereby the Tribunal has been pleased to allow the Original Application filed by the respondent, Sh. Vijay Kumar by giving following directions to the petitioners:

(2.) The aforesaid directions had been passed in favour of the respondent, who was working as Sr. Hindi Translator on an isolated post with the Sports Authority of India (SAI) and whose post was merged into the general cadre in 1999 in accordance with the guidelines issued by the authorities concerned. He was allowed to work on the said post till 1999 but thereafter a decision was taken to de-merge the said post w.e.f. 31.03.1999 and which decision was informed to the respondent on 03.05.2007. He challenged the aforesaid action of the petitioners by contending that the petitioners having taken a decision to merge the post could not de-merge the post without any rationale as it would amount to approbating and reprobating and because the said action of the petitioners was contrary to the order of Chandigarh Bench of Administrative Tribunal in the case of Salil Bhatnagar Vs. Union of India & Ors. (OA 306/PB/2000) decided on 08.05.2003. It was also pleaded that during the interregnum period, i.e., from 1991 to 1999, the petitioner performed the duties of merged post on which he was allowed to work after the merger of the post of Sr. Hindi Translator, and considering his performance on the general post, the petitioner was also promoted to the post of Deputy Director in the general cadre. He has, however, been not promoted further which was also one of the grievances raised by him before the Tribunal.

(3.) The petitioners have assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that while implementing the directions given in the Office Memorandum dated 11.03.1986 issued by the Department of Personnel for reduction of cadres and isolated post, by specifically stating that the essential requirement for merger is that the functions and responsibilities of the posts should be similar to that of post in the organized cadre and that the duties of the posts could be performed by any officer belonging to the service cadre on transfer to the post, they committed a mistake in merging the post of Sr. Hindi Translator which was a technical post in the general cadre and, therefore, after the issuance of the Office Memorandum dated 23.05.1990 clarifying the guidelines supplementing the instructions issued by O.M. dated 11.03.1986 despite having promoted the respondent to the post of Assistant Director from the post of Sr. Hindi Translator they decided to de-merge the said post on 31.03.1999 after issuing a show cause notice to the respondent. It was stated that the post of the respondent was demerged from that of the general administrative cadre as the post of the Sr. Hindi Translator held by him was an isolated post requiring specific job responsibilities. It was further mentioned in the office order that the respondent would be designated as Assistant Director (Hindi) thereafter and his name was deleted from the general administrative cadre. The pay scale drawn by him was made personal to him. It was further submitted that a representation has already been made by the authority to the Minister of Youth Affairs and Sports for creation of various posts of Hindi Cadre as per the guidelines of Official language but no decision has been taken. Despite that the petitioners have challenged the directions given in the OA by the Central Administrative Tribunal inter alia on the following amongst other grounds :