UOI Vs. C E M E S ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition challenges the order dated 17th December, 2003 delivered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'CAT'). The writ petition was occasioned by the challenge raised by the respondents seeking a quashing of the Office Order dated 1st August, 2002 and the subsequent Office Order dated 11th March, 2003 merging the two cadres of Civil and Electric Streams of C.P.W.D., leading to the post of promotion to the post of Additional Director General.

(2.) The case of the respondents/applicants before the CAT, was as follows:- A]. The Central Public Works Department ( in short 'CPWD') was formed in 1930 for design, construction and maintenance of Central Government buildings. Right from the inception the civil stream and the electrical stream were made distinct and separate and were governed by separate 1954 Rules drawn under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. There were separate sub-divisions head by the Chief Engineers (Civil) or Electrical. There were also posts of Additional Director General which were filled from eligible Chief Engineers(Civil/Electrical) and also the post of the Director General (Works) required to be filled by promotion from the post of Additional Director General. B]. From 1996, civil and electrical streams were governed by the newly formed Rules, which maintained the distinct entities of the civil and the electrical streams right upto the rank of Chief Engineer. The impugned office orders dated 1st August, 2002 and 11th March, 2003 were challenged before the CAT primarily on the ground that without resorting to amendment of the Rules, merger of the two streams of Civil and Electrical mandated by the Rules particularly that of the post of Chief Engineer was illegal.

(3.) The petitioner UOI, who was the respondent before the Tribunal contended that the CPWD executes projects on turnkey basis from concept to completion which includes the provision of all matters related to civil, architectural, electric and mechanical services. The Chief Engineer-in-Charge of the zone is accountable to the clients for the execution of the works and the existing system does not provide for coordination at the level of a zone. That leads to lack of cooperation sometimes between the two wings on the civil and electrical side and the zone was set up for achieving complete coordination. The UOI contended that it had the right to frame the rules and the aim and object of the impugned order was to streamline the working of the CPWD.