MOHD. SWALEH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 298 · Decided: 09-05-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MOHD. SWALEH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MAY 9, 1997 
B 
[S.B. MATMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
Se1vice Law: 
c 
Fu11dame11tal Rules-Rule 49-Appoi11tme11ts-Combi11i11g of-Pay of 
higher post-Admissibility of-Vice-Chairma11 of CAT ordered Deputy 
Registrar to discharge ftmctio11s of Registrar-All Heads of Depwtme11t 
delegated with the power of combi11atio11 of appointme11ts ''provided they have 
power to appoillt govemme11t servallt pennane11tly to each of the posts con-
cemed''-Vice-Chaim1a11 not empowered to make appoi11tment to the post of 
D !kgistra1----Held: Deputy Registrar 11ot elltitled to the pay of Registrar although 
he discharged the functions of Registrar since FR 49 was 11ot complied 
with-Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, 
R.28(3)-De/egation of Financial Powers Rules, 1978. 
E 
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965: 
Rule 8. 
Registrar in CA T-Appoi11ting Authority-Held : President is Appoint-
ing Authority· of Registrar because it is Group A post-!n the absence of 
delegation Vice-Chainnan not empowered to make appointment to the post 
F of Registrar--Central Administrative T1ibunal (Group A posts)-Recrnitment 
Rules, 1988, 
The appellant was appointed as Deputy Registrar, Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal by its Chairman. Subsequently, the Vice- chairman 
G CAT ordered the appellant to discharge the functions of the Registrar, a 
Group A post, as envisaged by Rule 28(3) of the Central Administrative 
Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. The appellant was also delegated cer-
tain financial powers under Rule 13 of the Delegation of Financial Power 
Rules, 1978. The posts of Deputy Registrar, Joint Registrar and Registrar 
were Group A posts under the Central Administrative Tribunal (Group A 
H posts) Recruitment Rules, 1988. 
298 
,. 
·-
MOHD. SWALEHv. U.O.I. 
299 
The appellant's representation for payment of additional remunera- A 
tion for discharging the duties of the post of Registrar was rejected by the 
Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal held that a person could 
be paid remuneration of higher post only if he was formally appointed to 
'the post by the competent authority vide Rule 49 of the Fundamental 
Rules. The Tribunal further held that the Appointing Authority for all B 
Group A posts was the President of India. Being aggrieved, the appellant 
preferred the present appeal. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that under Rule 8 of 
the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 C 
the President of India was the appointing authority to the post of Registrar 
which was a Group A post; that since the President had not delegated this 
power to the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Central Administrative 
Tribunal, there was no compliance of Rule 49 of the Fundamental Rules 
and, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to the pay of Registrar. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
D 
HELD : 1. Item .20 of the Table in Appendix 3 to the Fundamental 
Rules had been delegated to All Heads of Departments "provided that they 
have power to appoint Government servant permanently to each of the post E 
concerned". Vice-Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal was not 
empowered to make appointment to the post of Registrar, which could he 
made by the Central Government only. Hence, the appellant is not entitled 
to the salary of the Registrar though he discharged the functions of the 
Registrar under the order of the Vice-Chairman, since there was no com· 
pliance of Rule 49 of the Fundamental Rules. 
[304-H; 305-A-B; 306-C-D; 306-F-G] 
State of West Bengal v. B.K Monda/ & Sons, AIR (1962) SC 779, held 
inapplicable. 
F 
2. The post of Registrar is a Group A post under the Central G 
Administrative Tribunal (Group A posts) Recruitment rules, 1988. The 
President of India is the appointing authority of Group A post and this 
power has not been delegated to the Vice-Chairman of the Central Ad· 
ministrative Tribunal. The Vice-Chairman is, therefore, not empowered to 
make appointment to the post of Registrar. [305-G-H; 307-E] 
H 
300 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4412 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.5.95 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal in Jodhpur, in O.A. No. 342 of 1994. 
B 
Rajinder Sachar, Sushil K. Jain and AP. Dhamija for the Appellant. 
P.P. Malhotra, Shashi Kiran for Anil Katiyar for the Re

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.