1999 (12) TMI 822 - HC - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner held a lien on the post of Judicial Member after his appointment as President of CEGAT.
2. Whether the posts of President and Member of CEGAT belong to the same cadre.
3. Whether the petitioner had the right to revert to the post of Judicial Member after completing his tenure as President.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the petitioner held a lien on the post of Judicial Member after his appointment as President of CEGAT:

The petitioner argued that upon his appointment as President of CEGAT, he continued to hold a lien on his substantive post of Judicial Member, which was only suspended during his tenure as President. He claimed that his lien on the post of Judicial Member could not be terminated and should revive after his tenure as President ended.

The respondents, however, contended that upon the petitioner's appointment as President, his lien on the post of Judicial Member was terminated, and he acquired a lien on the post of President for the period of his tenure. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) supported this view, stating that as per Fundamental Rule (F.R.) 14A(d), the petitioner's lien on the post of Member stood terminated upon his appointment as President, as he acquired a lien on the permanent post of President.

The court agreed with the respondents and the CAT, concluding that the petitioner's lien on the post of Judicial Member was terminated upon his substantive appointment as President. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Dr. S.K. Kacker's case, which held that upon appointment to a permanent post outside the cadre, a government servant's lien on the previous permanent post stands terminated.

2. Whether the posts of President and Member of CEGAT belong to the same cadre:

The petitioner argued that the posts of President, Vice-President, and Members of CEGAT belong to the same cadre, and thus, upon completing his tenure as President, he had the right to revert to the post of Judicial Member. He supported his argument by referring to the structure and composition of CEGAT, where Members could be appointed as President or Vice-President.

The respondents, supported by the CAT, argued that the posts of President and Members of CEGAT are in different cadres. The CAT noted that while a Member and President are both Members of CEGAT, they hold different offices with distinct powers and responsibilities. The court agreed with this view, stating that the post of President is a higher post with different duties, responsibilities, and pay scales compared to the post of Member. The court cited the Supreme Court's decisions in Dr. L.P. Aggarwal and Dr. S.K. Kacker's cases, which supported the view that posts with different duties and responsibilities belong to different cadres.

3. Whether the petitioner had the right to revert to the post of Judicial Member after completing his tenure as President:

The petitioner argued that after completing his tenure as President, he should be reverted to the post of Judicial Member, where he could continue until the age of 62 years. He claimed that his appointment as President was a tenure post, and upon its completion, his lien on the post of Judicial Member should revive.

The respondents and the CAT disagreed, stating that upon the completion of the tenure as President, the petitioner had no right to revert to the post of Judicial Member. The CAT reasoned that the appointment as President was a substantive appointment to a permanent post, albeit for a limited period, and upon its completion, the petitioner's service with CEGAT ended.

The court upheld the CAT's decision, concluding that the petitioner's appointment as President was a direct recruitment to an independent post, and upon its completion, he had no right to revert to the post of Judicial Member. The court emphasized that the posts of President and Member are in different cadres, and the petitioner's lien on the post of Member was terminated upon his appointment as President.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, affirming the CAT's decision that the petitioner had no right to revert to the post of Judicial Member after completing his tenure as President of CEGAT. The court held that the posts of President and Member of CEGAT belong to different cadres, and the petitioner's lien on the post of Member was terminated upon his substantive appointment as President. The petitioner's claim to continue in CEGAT in any capacity after his tenure as President was not supported by the relevant rules and legal precedents.

← Previous Next →