Dismissal of Appeal: No Right to Promotion as Handicrafts Promotion Officer.


[ Court Doc ]   Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

This case of Rampat Azad (R.P. Azad) v/s Union of India & Others, involves an appeal against a Delhi High Court judgment, which upheld an order from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The appellant, initially appointed in 1976 as a Junior Field Officer (JFO) in Group B (pay scale Rs. 550-900) under a temporary "Carpet Weaving Training Centre" scheme, saw his post redesignated and downgraded to Carpet Training Officer (CTO) in Group C (pay scale Rs. 550-800) in 1978.
Crucially, in 1979, the Development Commissioner for Handicrafts redesignated all JFO posts in the All India Handicrafts Board as Handicrafts Promotion Officers (HPOs) in Group B (pay scale Rs. 550-900), explicitly stating that prior JFO service would count for all purposes, including seniority and promotion, in the HPO cadre. However, the appellant remained designated as a CTO.

In 1997, the appellant's original Group B pay scale of Rs. 550-900 was restored, but his designation as CTO remained. Following a 1999 CAT order, the appellant's service was regularized as a CTO in 2006, not as an HPO. Subsequent CAT orders directed the respondents to consider the appellant for promotion as a CTO or provide financial upgradation.

 
 

The appellant challenged these orders, arguing that he should have been redesignated as an HPO, given his original JFO appointment and the 1979 order. He cited the cases of two allegedly junior JFOs who were redesignated as HPOs and received promotions in that channel. The respondents countered that JFOs in the carpet scheme (like the appellant) and those in the marketing scheme were distinct cadres. They argued that the appellant had accepted his redesignation as a CTO and had already received financial upgradations equivalent to higher posts. Furthermore, the carpet scheme was closed in 2004, making promotions within that cadre impossible.

The Court observed that the appellant never challenged the CAT's 1999 order that directed his regularization as a CTO, not an HPO. It also acknowledged that the Delhi High Court had previously ruled that only JFOs under the marketing scheme were designated as HPOs. Given these circumstances and the fact that the appellant had received financial upgradations, the appeal was dismissed. The Court found no grounds to direct that the appellant be considered an HPO and granted further promotion in that channel.