The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a Carpet Training Officer (CTO) working at a carpet weaving training centre of the All India Handicrafts Board, claiming promotional avenues which were available to Handicrafts Promotion Officers under the marketing scheme and not to Officers under the Carpet Scheme. The Apex Court also noted that the carpet scheme was closed and all the officials in the cadre of CTOs in the carpet scheme, other than Jammu & Kashmir, were declared as surplus.

The challenge in the appeal was laid to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

The Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted, “It is not in dispute that the appellant was appointed as a JFO in Group B by order dated 15th July 1976. His post was designated and downgraded to CTO by the order dated 15th February 1978. In the meanwhile, by the order dated 4th June 1979, all JFOs were redesignated as HPOs with effect from 12th May 1979. What is most important is the order dated 16th May 1997. By the said order, the pay scale of JFOs in the carpet scheme was restored. What was restored was the pay scale of Rs. 550-900 in Group B with effect from 1st March 1978. However, the designation of appellant and others as CTOs was not changed.”

“The promotional avenues claimed by the appellant were only available to HPOs”, it added.

AOR Talha Abdul Rahman represented the Appellant while Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant was appointed on July 15, 1976 as a Junior Field Officer (JFO), which was a Group B Non-Gazetted post. The pay scale attached to the post was Rs. 550-25-750-30-900. His appointment was made at the Carpet Weaving Training Centre, which is run by the All-India Handicrafts Board, a part of the Ministry of Commerce, on a temporary basis. As per an order of the All India Handicrafts Board, the Development Commissioner accorded sanction to redesignate the post of Junior Field Officers (JFOs) as Handicrafts Promotion Officers (HPOs).

The Government directed that the officers who were holding the post of JFOs in the carpet scheme before March 1, 1978 and whose posts were redesignated as CTOs in the pay scale of Rs.550- 800 shall be accorded restoration of pay scale of Rs.550-900 in Group B. The appellant filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (CAT).The CAT directed that in case of the appellant and other similarly situated persons who were holding the post on an ad-hoc basis for 23 years, the respondent Union of India should take steps to regularize the appellant and other similarly situated persons against available regular vacancies of CTOs. In 2008, the CAT also directed the respondents to create promotional avenues or extend the financial upgradation.

Arguments

It was the appellant’s case that as per the order dated June 26, 2006, the appellant stood regularized in his original regular post of JFO Group-B. This was done with the concurrence of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). As the appellant was originally appointed as a JFO, Group B, he needed to be redesignated and treated as an Handicrafts Promotion Officers (HPO). Thereafter, the appellant ought to have been given the benefits of promotion in the channel of HPO.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts the Bench noted that the High Court in the impugned judgment noted that the order dated December 2, 1999 was not challenged by the appellant, which directed consideration of the appellant's case for promotion as a CTO (and not as HPO), subject to the availability of vacancies in the promotional channel. The High Court observed that for the promotion to the post of Assistant Director (A & C), the CTO was the feeder cadre. As the carpet scheme was closed, all the officials in the cadre of CTOs in the carpet scheme, other than Jammu & Kashmir, were declared as surplus. Therefore, the question of promotion of the appellant to a higher post did not arise at all.

Reference was made to the communication dated September 28, 2007 wherein it was stated that the carpet scheme was already closed as of April 12, 2004, except for Jammu and Kashmir; as such, CTOs in the carpet scheme were declared surplus. Therefore, the question of promoting the appellant did not arise.

It was further noticed that no direction was ever issued to treat the appellant as HPO. Reference was also made to a judgment of the Delhi High Court in N.K. Asthana v. Union of India (2007) wherein it was held that only JFOs under the marketing scheme were designated as HPOs and not JFOs working in the carpet scheme.

Thus, the Bench was unable to issue directions to consider the appellant as HPO and grant him further promotion. Thus, dismissing the appeal, the Bench refused to interfere with the order giving the benefit of MACP by the respondents to the appellant.

Cause Title: Rampat Azad (R.P. Azad) v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 740)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Talha Abdul Rahman, Advocates M Shaz Khan, Sudhanshu Tewari, Adv. Mr. Rafid Akhter, Adv. Mr. Faizan Ahmed, Adv

Respondent: Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, Advocates Chitrangda Rastravara, Aman Sharma, Jitender Kr. Tripathi, Shashwat Anand, AOR Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Advocates Annirudh Sharma, A.K. Sharma, Shivani, AOR Hrishikesh Baruah

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice Abhay S OkaJustice Ujjal Bhuyan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.