$~4 to 6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 30.09.2024
+ W.P.(C) 5681/2015
RAKESH SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber and Mr.
Anshuman Mehrotra, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr.
Subhrodeep Saha, Ms. Radhika
Kurdukar, Advs.
5
+ W.P.(C) 10313/2015
AJAY KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber and Mr.
Anshuman Mehrotra, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC, Mr. T.
Hari Hara Sudhan, Adv. with Mr.
Ajay Pal, Legal Officer, CRPF, Mr.
Shivkumar Singh, SI and Mr. Sanjeev
Kumar Singh, ASI.
6
+ W.P.(C) 2662/2016
HARI SINGH VOHRA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber and Mr.
Anshuman Mehrotra, Advs.
versus
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5681/2015& connected petitions Page 1 of 6
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:04.10.2024
11:36:56
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, CGSC with
Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj and Mr. Vishal
Sharma, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
E SHALINDER KAUR
HON’BLE MS. JUSTIC
J U D G M E N T
NAVIN CHAWLA, J (ORAL)
1. This batch of petitions has been filed by the petitioners seeking their
encadrement to the Central Civil Accounts Service Cadre (CCAS) in the
Indian Civil Accounts Organisation in terms of Orders dated 23.07.2012 and
06.02.2013.
2. As these petitions seek similar reliefs and are based on similar facts,
they are being disposed of by this common Judgment. For the sake of
convenience, we shall be referring to the facts from W.P.(C) 5681/2015.
Case of the Petitioner:
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was attached to the
Pay and Accounts Office (PAO), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on
20.02.2007. It is asserted that while the petitioner was performing his
services there, a meeting w
as held under the chairmanship of then Hon’ble
Home Minister, Government of India, on 24.09.2009, wherein, it was
decided that the working staff of the PAOs of various paramilitary forces
shall be encadred into one organisation called the Indian Civil Accounts
Organisation which was to function under the aegis of the Ministry of Home
Affairs.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5681/2015& connected petitions Page 2 of 6
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:04.10.2024
11:36:56
4. In the said meeting, it was also directed that the paramilitary forces
shall train their personnel in the COMPACT software which would be used
by the encadred staff of the newly constituted Indian Civil Accounts
Organisation.
5. Subsequently, by a communication dated 25.11.2009 issued by the
Chief Controller of Accounts, it was instructed to the Inspector General
(Personnel) of paramilitary forces that till the orders for the encadrement/
absorption are finalised, status quo shall be maintained in the PAO, and no
orders for transfer in/out or joining/relieving shall be issued.
6. In view of the said order, when a request for relieving the petitioner in
W.P.(C) 5681/2015 was received at the PAO, the same was refused in terms
of the communication dated 25.11.2009. However, later, the petitioner was
relieved on 23.06.2010 and repatriated to the CRPF.
7. The petitioner claims that, later, officers who were still attached with
the PAO and were similarly situated as the petitioner, were encadred vide
Orders dated 23.07.2012, 06.02.2013 and 24.04.2014. Upon being left out in
this process, the petitioner made representations to the respondents,
however, no response was given to the pet s by the
itioner’s representation
respondents, forcing the petitioner to file the present petition.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners:
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
repatriated to the CRPF in spite of there being a ban on the same pursuant to
the decision of the Ministry of Home Affairs to create a separate service
called the Indian Civil Accounts Organisation in the meeting held on
24.09.2009 and the instructions issued on 25.11.2009. He submits that all
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5681/2015& connected petitions Page 3 of 6
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:04.10.2024
11:36:56
persons who were serving in the PAO as on 24.09.2009 (the date on which
the initial decision for encadrement was taken), were to be absorbed in the
new service that was being created. He further submits that the petitioners
were discriminated against inasmuch as, while the petitioners were
repatriated and denied the benefit of absorption, others who are similarly
placed were absorbed in the new service.
Submissions of the learned counsels for the respondents:
9. On the other hand, the learned counsels for the respondents submit
that post the communication dated 25.11.2009, whereby there was a
temporary ban on movement of the officers working at PAO, a further
direction dated 01.06.2010 was issued, directing that the ban shall continue
except for those working on attachment in PAO (CRPF). Based on the
direction dated 01.06.2010, and as the petitioner had completed his
attachment period of three years, he was repatriated on 23.06.2010 to the
CRPF.
10. Learned counsels for the respondents further submit that it was only
the present working staff strength of CRPF who were deputed as officers
with the PAO as on 23.07.2012 and had given their willingness to be
absorbed, who were encadred to the new service.
11. They submit that the claim of the petitioner that similarly situated
persons were absorbed while the petitioner was left out is, therefore,
incorrect.
12. They have explained the case of the other officers who have been
named by the petitioner and have distinguished their case on the ground that
they were working with the PAO as on the date of their absorption, while the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5681/2015& connected petitions Page 4 of 6
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:04.10.2024
11:36:56
petitioner had already been repatriated to his parent department.
Proceedings in the present petition:
13. This Court, vide its order dated 25.07.2024, prima facie, relying only
on the communication dated 25.11.2009, had directed the respondents to
find out if there were still any unfilled vacancies available in the CCAS
cadre. The learned counsels for the respondents submit that there is no such
provision for absorption in the cadre and there are no vacancies as on date.
Analysis and findings:
14. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsels for the
parties.
15. As it is evident from the above, the basis of the present petition is the
the decision taken in the meeting held on 24.09.2009 to create a new service,
called the Indian Civil Accounts Organisation, and for encadrement of the
staff working in the PAO to this newly constituted organisation.
16. The short question that arises for consideration in the present petitions
is whether the petitioners are entitled to the encadrement in the Indian Civil
Accounts Organisation as they were serving in the PAO on the date on
which the initial decision for encadrement of the working staff of the PAOs
was taken.
17. The petitioner has heavily relied upon the decision dated 25.11.2009
issued by the Chief Controller of Accounts, whereby the instructions were
issued to maintain status quo and not to pass any orders of transfer in/out or
joining/relieving till the final encadrement takes place. However, the fact
remains that by a subsequent decision dated 01.06.2010, as far as the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5681/2015& connected petitions Page 5 of 6
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:04.10.2024
11:36:56
officers working on attachment in PAO (CRPF) were concerned, the status
quo was lifted and the officers were allowed to be repatriated on their
substitutes being appointed to the PAO. The petitioner was one such officer
who was repatriated pursuant to this decision, on 23.06.2010.
18. In view of the subsequent decision, the reliance of the petitioner on
the decision dated 25.11.2009 and 15.02.2010 to claim that a right has been
created in favour of the petitioners to have been absorbed in the new
organisation, cannot be accepted. In fact, in view of the lifting of the ban on
transfers/repatriation, admittedly, the petitioner was repatriated on
23.06.2010 to the CRPF. When the final decision on
encadrement/absorption was taken, the petitioner was not working with the
PAO. Therefore, the offer of encadrement was not given to the petitioner.
19. As per the policy, the offer of encadrement was applicable only to
those who were working with the PAO on the particular date of final
decision. The petitioners have not challenged the date considered for
encadrement as being arbitrary or whimsical.
20. In the light of the aforesaid, we find that the petitioners have not been
discriminated in any manner and find no merit in the present petitions. The
same are, accordingly, dismissed.
(NAVIN CHAWLA)
JUDGE
(SHALINDER KAUR)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 30, 2024
ab/su/B/VS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5681/2015& connected petitions Page 6 of 6
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:04.10.2024
11:36:56