Government Employee Promotion Dispute: Supreme Court Rules on Service Matter

In the corridors of government service, where designations and pay scales often determine career trajectories, the story of Rampat Azad stands as a testament to the complex interplay between administrative decisions and employee rights. What began as a simple appointment in 1976 would evolve into a legal battle spanning nearly three decades, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court of India. This case reveals the intricate web of government service rules, redesignations, and the pursuit of promotional avenues that many public servants face during their careers.

The journey started on July 15, 1976, when Rampat Azad was appointed as a Junior Field Officer (JFO) at the Carpet Weaving Training Centre in Jalapur, District Varanasi. This was a Group B Non-Gazetted post with a pay scale of Rs. 550-25-750-30-900. His appointment letter clearly stated that this was a “purely temporary post under a planned scheme” and that the appointment was “on an ad-hoc basis” which would “not bestow on him any claim to a regular appointment.” Little did he know that this temporary beginning would lead to a lifetime of service and legal battles.

The first significant change came on March 1, 1978, when the Government of India redesignated all JFOs in carpet weaving training centres as Carpet Training Officers (CTOs) in Group-C non-Gazetted with a downgraded pay scale of Rs. 550-20-650-25-800. This redesignation effectively reduced both the status and remuneration of the appellant and his colleagues. However, a more promising development followed on June 4, 1979, when the All India Handicrafts Board sanctioned the redesignation of JFO posts to Handicrafts Promotion Officers (HPOs), noting that “the services rendered by the persons in the post of JFOs in All India Handicrafts Board shall be counted for seniority, leave, increment, confirmation, etc. in the posts of HPOs.”

The plot thickened on May 16, 1997, when the Government of India partially modified its earlier order and directed that “officers who were holding the post of JFOs in the carpet scheme prior to 1st March 1978 and whose posts were redesignated as CTOs in the pay scale of Rs.550-800 vide order dated 15th February 1978 shall be accorded restoration of pay scale of Rs.550-900 in Group B with effect from 1st March 1978.” However, this restoration came with a crucial caveat: “The status of CTOs will be ad-hoc, subject to regularisation by UPSC as per the rules.”

This led to the first legal intervention when the appellant filed OA No. 2921 of 1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). On December 2, 1999, the CAT directed that “the respondent Union of India should take steps to regularise the appellant and other similarly situated persons against available regular vacancies of CTOs” and “consider their cases for promotion, subject to the availability of vacancies.” This order was significant because it specifically mentioned regularisation in CTO vacancies, a point that would become crucial in later proceedings.

The appellant’s service was eventually regularised on June 26, 2006, as a CTO in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000. However, the promotional aspects remained unresolved, leading to further litigation. The CAT, in its order dated December 2, 2008, directed the respondents “to create promotional avenues or extend the financial upgradation as per the method laid down under the law.” It was this order that the appellant challenged before the High Court, and subsequently, the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant’s case was passionately argued by Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, appointed as amicus curiae. The learned counsel made several compelling arguments. He submitted that “the stand of the respondents taken before the CAT of holding and treating the appellant as one belonging to the cadre of CTO was fundamentally wrong.” He pointed out that “the respondents themselves appointed the appellant in the service as JFO Group B in the pay scale of Rs. 500-900. Moreover, the respondents themselves redesignated the appellant and other similarly situated JFOs as CTOs in Group-C with a lesser grade.”

The amicus curiae emphasized that “the respondents admitted that this redesignation and down-scaling was wrong and therefore, the appellant was re-regularised back to his original cadre as JFO, Group-B with the pay scale of Rs. 500-900. Thereafter, the respondents redesignated all the JFOs who were appointed from 1975-78 as Handicrafts Promotion Officers (HPOs), Group-B in the pay scale of Rs. 550-900 (pre-revised).”

One of the most compelling arguments presented was regarding the appellant’s juniors receiving better treatment. The counsel pointed out that “respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who were also appointed as JFOs in the pay scale of Rs. 550-900. According to the appellant, they were junior in service to him. Both of them were given the benefit of redesignation as HPO and a grant of promotion in that channel. They were promoted as Assistant Director (Handicrafts), Deputy Director (Handicrafts) and finally as Regional Directors (Handicrafts).”

The amicus curiae strongly argued that “respondents cannot defeat their own order dated 4th June 1979, by which all JFOs appointed from 1975-78 were redesignated as HPOs.” He submitted that “a gross illegality was committed by redesignating about 60 JFOs as CTOs in a lesser grade and pay scale.” He further pointed out that “JFOs who have been redesignated as HPOs and JFOs who were down-graded as CTOs were still maintaining a common list of seniority.”

The counsel relied heavily on the communication issued by the respondents on August 22, 2000, addressed to the UPSC, where “respondents admitted that the appellant belongs to the category of CTOs who were redesignated from the post of JFOs Group-B, along with 45 others. It was admitted that they needed to be regularised and brought back to the designation and cadre of JFO.” He ultimately submitted that “the action of the respondents in denying the benefit of the post of HPO to the appellant was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

The respondents, represented by their counsel, presented a different perspective. They argued that “the JFOs in the carpet scheme and the JFOs in the marketing scheme were two separate cadres having separate nature of jobs. These two schemes were functional under the office of the Development Commissioner (DC, Handicrafts).” The counsel pointed out that “JFOs appointed in the carpet scheme were called JFO (Carpet Scheme), and JFOs who were appointed in the marketing scheme were called JFO (Marketing Scheme).”

The respondents emphasized that “the work done by JFOs (Carpet Scheme) and JFOs (Marketing Scheme) was completely different.” They submitted that “the appellant was originally appointed on an ad-hoc basis on 15th July 1976 as a JFO (Group B Non-Gazetted) in the scale of Rs. 550-900 in the Carpet Weaving Centre, Jalalpur District, Varanasi (U.P.). The exercise of redesignation of JFOs (Carpet Scheme) to CTOs was done with a view to regularise the employment of the appellant and similarly situated individuals.”

A crucial point made by the respondents was that “the appellant accepted his redesignation as per the option he had chosen. The employment of the appellant was regularised by the order dated 26th June 2006 as a CTO on the basis of recommendations of the UPSC, and his services continued till December 2013 on being superannuated.” They also highlighted that “the carpet scheme was closed with effect from 12th April 2004, except in relation to Jammu & Kashmir.”

The respondents drew attention to the financial benefits already granted to the appellant, pointing out that “in terms of the said order, the appellant was granted the benefit of three financial upgradations (ACPs and MACP), making his pay scale equivalent to that of the Regional Director (Handicrafts), which is the highest post on promotion in the office of Deputy Director, Handicrafts.” They specifically noted that “the appellant and similarly situated persons were granted grade pay of Rs 7600 (PB-3) in the pay scale of 15600-39100. However, JFOs (Marketing Scheme) who had been designated as HPOs did not get the benefit of grade pay of Rs 7600 on the grant of financial upgradation.”

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, undertook a meticulous examination of the factual and legal matrix of the case. The Court began by noting that “the order of appointment of the appellant is of 15th July 1976, appointing him as JFO (Group-B Non-Gazetted) in the pay scale of 550-25-750-30-900 in the Carpet Weaving Training Centre.”

The Court placed significant emphasis on the order dated June 4, 1979, which stated: “In exercise of the powers vested in the Development Commissioner for Handicrafts, All India Handicrafts Board, as Head of Department, sanction is hereby accorded to re- designate the posts of Junior Field Officers in the scale of pay of Rs. 550-25-750-EB-30-900 in the All India Handicrafts Board, as Handicrafts Promotion Officers with effect from 12th May, 1979. The services rendered by the persons concerned in the posts of Junior Field Officers in the All India Handicrafts Board will count for all purposes including seniority, leave, increment, confirmation etc. in the posts of Handicrafts Promotion Officers.”

The Court’s analysis of the crucial order dated May 16, 1997, revealed four key aspects: “i. The order was applicable to those officers who were holding the post of JFOs in the carpet scheme prior to 1st March 1978 and whose posts were redesignated as CTOs in the pay scale of Rs.550-800 vide order dated 15th February 1978; ii. Pay scale of the aforesaid category of officers was restored in Group B in the pay scale of Rs.550-900; iii. The effect of the said order is that in the case of the officers mentioned in clause (i) above, while maintaining their designation as CTOs, the pay scale of Rs.550-900 was restored; and iv. The status of the CTOs was to be ad-hoc and subject to regularisation by UPSC, as per the rules.”

The Court noted a critical procedural history that would ultimately determine the outcome: “Before we refer to the order dated 2nd December 2008, we must refer to the earlier orders passed in the case of the appellant. Firstly, we refer to the order dated 2nd December 1999 in OA No. 2921 of 1997 passed by the CAT. The appellant was the applicant in the said OA. This OA was based on the order dated 16th May 1997. In paragraph 4 of the said order, the CAT directed the respondents to take prompt steps to regularise the appellant and other similarly situated persons in the regular vacancies of CTOs and consider their cases for promotion, subject to the availability of vacancies in the promotional channel. The appellant did not challenge the said order by contending that he should be regularised as an HPO. Thus, he accepted the order directing his regularisation in the vacancies of CTOs.”

The Court further observed that “by the order dated 26th June 2006, the respondents regularised the service of the appellant as a CTO in the pay scale of Rs 5500-175-9000. In the further order dated 6th July 2007, a direction was issued to consider the case of the appellant for promotion by considering promotional avenues available to CTOs. Therefore, the sum and substance of the impugned orders is that no direction was ever issued to treat the appellant as HPO.”

The Court addressed the fundamental issue of the different schemes, noting that “the respondents have relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court dated 8th August 2007 in N.K. Asthana v. Union of India, which holds that only JFOs under the marketing scheme were designated as HPOs and not JFOs working in the carpet scheme.”

In its concluding analysis, the Court stated: “Therefore, we are unable to issue directions to consider the appellant as HPO and grant him further promotion. However, it is discernible from the materials on record that the appellant was given the benefit of MACP by the respondents as per the second option given by the CAT in the order dated 2nd December 2008. Hence, we are unable to interfere with the impugned judgment.”

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the appeal underscores several important principles in service jurisprudence. It highlights the significance of challenging orders at the appropriate time, the binding nature of administrative classifications between different schemes, and the importance of the specific relief sought in earlier proceedings. While the appellant’s quest for HPO status and the accompanying promotional benefits remained unfulfilled, the judgment provides clarity on the distinctions between various government schemes and the career progression paths available to employees within those schemes.

This case serves as a important precedent for government employees navigating the complex terrain of service rules, redesignations, and promotional avenues, reminding them of the importance of timely legal challenges and the need to understand the specific administrative framework governing their employment.

Petitioner Name: Rampat Azad (R.P. Azad).
Respondent Name: Union of India and Ors.
Judgment By: Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Place Of Incident: Delhi.
Judgment Date: 20-05-2025.
Result: dismissed.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: rampat-azad-(r.p.-az-vs-union-of-india-and-o-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-20-05-2025.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in Judgment by Ujjal Bhuyan
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category