UNNI MENON versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 33 · Decided: 07-01-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 2 S.C.R. 33 
UNNIMENON 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7113 of 2005) 
JANUARY 07, 2011 
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law - Promotion - Audit/Accounts Officers -
Appellant, Assistanti Accounts Officer in the Office of C 
Accountant General, deputed in Central Administrative 
Tribunal (CAT) - On the basis of his lien and seniority, 
promoted as Accounts Officer in his parent office i.e. in the 
office of Accountant General - Thereafter, he was absorbed 
as Accounts Officer in CAT - Pursuant to recommendations 
D 
of IVth Pay Commission, Government of India issued Office 
Memorandum giving promotional grade for Audit/Accounts 
Officers of 'Organized Accounts Cadres' - Appellant filed 
application claiming entitlement to be considered for 
promotion as Sr. Accounts Officer in CAT based on the said 
E 
Official Memorandum -
Tribunal allowed the application -
· 
High Court set aside the order holding that the Accounts 
Department in CAT did not fall within the ambit of 'Organized 
Accounts Cadres' - Justification of - Held: Justified - CAT is 
a separate entity created under statute and is not a 
F 
department of the Central Government - Cadre hierarchy in 
CAT is regulated by the 1990 Recruitment Rules, which are 
independent and self-contained -
They could not be 
intermingled with the Rules of Central Government 
Departments - Appellant could not claim the benefit of the, G 
said Office Memorandum, as by the relevant time, he had lost . 
his lien in the parent department and was borne on the cadre. 
of Accounts Department of CAT - In the hierarchy of accounts 
cadre of the CAT, there was no cadre called the 'Sr. Accounts 
33 
H 
34 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 
A Officer', to which the appellant wanted promotion -
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - s. 13(2) - Central 
Administrative Tribunal (Accounts Personnel Posts) 
Recruitment Rules, 1990 - Rule 3 and Schedule 2. 
8 
While the appellant was working as Assistant 
Accounts Officer in the Office of the Acc:ountant General, 
he went on deputation to work in the Central 
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) w.e.f. 21st August, 1989. As 
the appellant was on deputation, his lien was maintained 
C in his parent department, i.e., Accountant General. On the 
basis of his lien and seniority, he was promoted as 
Accounts Officer in his parent office, i.e., in office of the 
Accountant General, w.e.f. 1st April 1992. Thereafter, he 
was absorbed as Accounts Officer in CAT w.e.f. 23rd 
March, 1994. 
D 
The IVth Pay Commission made certain recommen-
dations in the matter of pay scales between the Accounts 
Officers in the Accounts Wing and the Accounts Officers 
in the Audit Wing of the Indian Audit and Accounts 
E Department. Pursuant to the recommendations of the IV 
Pay Commission, Government of India issued a circular 
vide No. F.6(82)/IC/91 dated 22nd September, 1992 giving 
promotional grade for Audit/Accounts Officers of 
'Organized Accounts Cadres'. 
F 
It was the case of the appellant that he should have 
been promoted to the cadre of Sr. Accounts Officer w.e.f. 
1st April, 1995 on his completion of three years' of 
service in the cadre of Accounts Officer pursuant to the 
aforesaid circular dated 22nd September, 1992. He 
G contended that the persons junior to him in his parent 
department had been promoted on completion of three 
years' service and that since the nature of duties 
performed and responsibilities shouldered by him in CAT 
are identical or very similar to the duties and 
H 
UNNI MENON v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.. 
35 
responsibilities in the parent cadre, he was entitled to A 
parity in designation and pay with his counterparts in the 
Indian Audit & Accounts Department. The appellant's plea 
for promotion to the cadre of Sr. Accounts Officer was 
rejected on the ground that CAT did not have 'Organized 
Accounts Cadres' and, therefore, the benefit of O.M. s 
dated 22nd September, 1992, could not be extended to 
him. 
The appellant then filed an application before the 
Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed his application holding that C 
even though there was no 'Organized Accounts Service' 
in CAT, the Accounts Department in CAT is also liable to 
be considered as an 'Organized Accounts Cadre' and 
that the Memorandum dated 22nd September, 1992 was 
applicable as it had a general application to all Organized 
Accounts Cadres. 
D 
Aggrieved, the respondents filed writ petition before 
the High Court. 

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