http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VINOD KUMAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/07/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (5)696

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Leave granted.      We have heard the learned counsel.      The only  short question  is whether the deviation from rule of  granting promotion  of 50%  of the  quota giving  2 years additional  benefit to  the Upper  Division Clerks  is valid in  law? Sub-section  [71](a) of  Section 5-D  of  the Employees Provident  Fund and  Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 provides method of recruitment as under:      "7(a) The  method  of  recruitment,      salary and  allowances,  discipline      and other  conditions of service of      the  Additional  Central  Provident      Fund      Commissioner,      Deputy      Provident,    Fund    Commissioner,      Regional       Provident       Fund      Commissioner,  Assistant  Provident      Fund   Commissioner    and    other      officers  and   employees  of   the      Central Board  shall be such as may      be specified  by the  Central Board      in accordance  with the  Rules  and      orders applicable  to the  officers      and  employees   of   the   Central      Government  drawing   corresponding      scales of pay.           Provided   that    where   the      Central Board  is  of  the  opinion      that it  is  necessary  to  make  a      departure from  the said  rules  or      orders in  respect of  any  of  the      matters aforesaid,  it shall obtain      the prior  approval of  the Central      Government."      Under the  proviso, where  the Central  Board is of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

opinion that  it is  necessary to  make a departure from the said rules  or orders  in respect  of  any  of  the  matters enumerated above it is mandatory that it should obtain prior approval  of   the  Central  Government.  Admittedly,  prior approval was  not obtained. On the other hand, ex post facto approval was  obtained but  in the  teeth of the language of the proviso ex post facto approval is not an approval in the eye of  law. Under  these circumstances,  the  Tribunal  had rightly held  that the approval was not valid in law and the matter was kept at large and directed the appellant to issue notification  afresh  for  recruitment  in  accordance  With rules. We do not find any legality in the order.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.