1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 231  OF 2005

UNION OF INDIA                             Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

SURESH KUMAR NAYAK                         Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment  

and order dated 6.11.2003 passed by the High Court  

of Delhi in Civil Writ No.3000 of 2003.  Brief facts  

which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are  

recapitulated as under:

2. The Directorate General of Security (for short  

'DGS') under Cabinet Secretariat had four units.

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Special  Service  Bureau  (SSB)

Aviation  Research  Centre (ARC)

Special  Frontier Force  (SFF)

Chief  Inspectorate  of  Armament  (CIOA)

2

These  four  units  had  a  common  and  combined  DGS  

(Secretarial)  Service  with  inter-se  seniority  and  

the inter unit transfer liability having 4 cadres:

1) Secretarial

2) Ministerial

3) Accounts

4) Stenographers

3. The  respondent  was  directly  recruited  as  

Assistant in the year 1995 in the Special Service  

Bureau. In 1996, he requested for his transfer to  

another unit Aviation Research Centre but he could  

not be transferred for administrative reasons.

4. It may be pertinent to mention here that the  

Union of India took a policy decision in January,  

2001, to transfer the administrative control of the  

Special Service Bureau and the Chief Inspectors of  

Armaments  from  the  Cabinet  Secretariat  to  the  

Ministry of  Home Affairs  vide Cabinet  Secretariat  

Order  No.1/2/2001-EA-1  dated  15.1.2001  and  merged  

the ministerial staff of the Chief Inspectorate of  

Armaments with that of Special Service Bureau. As a  

consequence of  transfer of  Special Service  Bureau

3

and the Chief Inspectorate of Armaments, two units  

of the Cabinet Secretariat were transferred to the  

Ministry of Home Affairs, vide Cabinet Secretariat  

Order NO.I/2/201-EA-1-3483-A, dated 23.08.2001.  

5. The office of Directorate General of Security  

(Secretarial) Service  was trifurcated into:  

(i) Special  Service  Bureau  (including  Chief  

Inspectorate  of  Armaments)  (Secretarial)  

Service;

(ii) Aviation  Research  Centre  (Secretarial)  

Service; and  

(iii)  Special  Frontier  Force  (Secretarial)  

Service.   

6. The  Secretarial/Ministerial  Staff  of  the  

Directorate  General  of  Security  (Secretarial)  

Service was apportioned on “AS IS WHERE IS” basis  

with  the  approval  of  the  Directorate  General  of  

Security  (Secretarial),  Home  Secretary  and  the  

Cabinet  Secretary  and  the  incumbents  of  the  

appointed  posts  were  made  to   continue  in  their  

respective units on “AS IS WHERE IS” basis at the  

time of trifurcation on 23.1.2001.  

4

7. The respondent challenged the validity of the  

Cabinet Secretariat  Order dated  23.8.2001 and  the  

Special  Service  Bureau  Directorate's  order  dated  

21.12.2001 containing the trifurcation orders of the  

Directorate  General  of  Security  (Secretarial)  

Service before the Central Administrative Tribunal,  

Principal Bench, New Delhi.  

8. The order was assailed on the ground that the  

said orders did not provide opportunity to the staff  

of  the  erstwhile  Directorate  General  of  Security  

(Secretarial)  Service  to  exercise  option  for  

choosing an organisation of their choice out of the  

three organisations.  

9. According to the respondent,  allocating staff  

to other units in the cadre on the basis of “AS IS  

WHERE IS” is arbitrary and violative of Article 14  

and 16 of the Constitution. The respondent prayed  

that  the  aforesaid  orders  dated  23.08.2001  and  

21.12.2001 be quashed.

5

10. The respondent also prayed that the appellant  

Union of India be directed to provide an opportunity  

to  the  incumbents  of  the  erstwhile  Directorate  

General of Security (Secretarial) Service to opt any  

of these trifurcated services in a fair and just  

manner.   

11. The  Central  Administrative  Tribunal  

(“Tribunal”,  for  short)  by  its  order  dated  

13.11.2002 allowed the original application filed by  

the  respondent  and  held  that  the  order  dated  

9.9.1993 by which the joint cadre has been done away  

with  is  clearly  violative  of  the  rights  of  the  

respondent under Article 16 of the Constitution.  

12. The Tribunal also observed that once a joint  

cadre is created under the orders of a competent  

authority,  it  can  only  be  dismembered  if  the  

fundamental rights of the public servants are not  

infringed.  The Tribunal further observed as under:

“In this case we find that earlier these  

were four units which were trifurcated in  

three units. One unit is under the Ministry  

of Home Affairs and the other two remain

6

under the Ministry of Communication. This  

fact  does  not  affect  the  right  of  the  

applicant  to  seek  allocation  to  a  

particular unit.  The infringement of the  

fundamental  right  of  the  applicant  would  

definitely affect this service conditions.  

Thus,  we  find  that  the  impugned  order  

cannot be sustained. While allocating the  

cadres we  hope the  direction of  DOPT as  

followed  in  the  case  of  Ministry  of  

Communication,  will  be  taken  into  

consideration.  The  OA  is  allowed  in  the  

aforesaid terms. No costs.”     

13. The appellant Union of India aggrieved by the  

order dated 13.11.2002 passed by the Tribunal, filed  

a writ petition before the Division Bench of the  

Delhi High Court.  The Division Bench relied on the  

Circular dated 18.5.1994 issued by the Ministry of  

Personnel, Public  Grievances and  Pension when  the  

two  separate  cadres  in  the  Ministry  of  

Communications  were  created  and  came  to  the  

conclusion  that  an  opportunity  to  exercise  the  

option had to be granted to the respondent. The writ  

petition filed by the Union of India was dismissed  

by the High Court by the impugned judgment.

7

14. The  appellant  aggrieved  by  the  impugned  

judgments of the Tribunal and Delhi High Court has  

preferred this appeal on the following questions of  

law:  

(a)  Whether  the  High  Court  is  justified  in  

setting aside the policy decision of the Government  

of India of trifurcation of the Directorate General  

of  Security  (Secretarial)  Service  into  three  

organisations on the principle of “AS IS WHERE IS”  

basis only on the ground that the said decision did  

not provide opportunity to the staff of erstwhile  

Directorate  General  of  Security  (Secretarial)  

Service  to  exercise  option  for  choosing  an  

organisation of their choice?

(b) Whether the High Court is right in relying  

upon  the  circular  issued  by  the  Ministry  of  

Personnel, Public  Grievances and  Pension, in  May,  

1994  at  the  time  of  bifurcation  of  Ministry  of  

Communication, which provided for an opportunity to  

the staff concerned to exercise option for choice  

between the bifurcated cadres?

15. The appellant submitted that the circular of

8

1994  related  to  bifurcation  of  the  Ministry  of  

Communication and in that case the resultant units  

still  remained  part  and  parcel  of  the  parent  

Ministry i.e. Ministry of Communication even after  

the  bifurcation.  While  the  organisation  of  the  

Directorate  General  of  Security  (Secretarial)  

Service  trifurcated  into  three  different  and  

independent departments under the Ministry of Home  

Affairs under the Cabinet Secretariat.   

16. It  was  also  submitted  that  the  object  of  

bifurcation  in  the  case  of  former  is  the  

classification of the two cadres on the basis of  

different  functions  to  be  performed  by  them  for  

better command and control, whereas in the present  

transfer  case,  the  trifurcation  was  related  as  a  

consequence of transfer of administrative control of  

the Special Service Bureau to the Ministry of Home  

Affairs from Cabinet Secretariat, in the interest of  

national security i.e. to guard international border  

all along Indo Nepal border.    

17. Special  Service  Bureau,  Aviation  Research  

Centre,  Special  Frontier  Force  and  the  Chief

9

Inspectorate of Armaments (CIOA) were four units of  

the  Directorate  General  of  Security  under  the  

Cabinet Secretariat. These four units had a common  

and  combined  Directorate  General  of  Security  

(Secretarial)  Service  comprising  of  four  cadres,  

namely  Secretarial,  Ministerial,  Accounts  and  

Stenographers  Cadres  with  inter-se  seniority  and  

inter unit transfer liability as notified under the  

Recruitment  Rules  vide  Cabinet  Secretariat  

Notification No.EA/SE-115/70 dated 04.11.1975.  

18. According  to  the  appellant,  the  policy  

decision of the Government of India taken at the  

highest level in the interest of national security  

ought not to have been interfered with by which two  

units,  namely,  Special  Service  Bureau  and  Chief  

Inspectorate of Armaments were transferred from the  

Cabinet Secretariat to the Ministry of Home Affairs.  

On transfer, the entire staff of the Special Service  

Bureau enblock was alsotransferred to the Ministry  

of  Home  Affairs.  When  the  entire  unit  was  

transferred,  there  was  no  question  of  giving  an  

option to the respondent and similarly placed other  

employees.

10

19. In the impugned judgment, the High Court was  

not justified in relying on the Circular issued by  

the Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievances and  

Pension  on  18.5.1994.   In  the  instant  case,  the  

entire  two  units  were  shifted  from  the  Cabinet  

Secretariat to the Ministry of Home Affairs.  It was  

decided not to give individual option.  

20. The  Central  Administrative  Tribunal  

erroneously held that the respondent's fundamental  

rights were infringed and accordingly it quashed the  

order dated 9.9.1993.  In the impugned judgment the  

High  Court  was  not  justified  in  affirming  the  

judgment  of  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal  

because, in our considered view, there has been no  

infringement of any fundamental right or any other  

right of the respondent.  

21. The respondent has claimed that his chances of  

promotion have been reduced by transferring his unit  

to the Ministry of Home Affairs. According to the  

appellant, even this is not factually correct. The  

appellant filed an additional affidavit  before the

11

High Court in which it was mentioned that as per the  

combined  common  seniority  of  Assistants  in  the  

Directorate General  of Secretarial  Service, as  it  

stood  on  23.8.2001  i.e.  before  trifurcation,  

respondent Suresh Kumar Nayak was placed at Serial  

No.116 out of 176 Assistants shown in the seniority  

list, excluding the Assistants on deputation. After  

trifurcation  of  the  Directorate  General  of  

Secretarial  Service  in  2001,  taking  his  

continuation  in  the  Special  Service  Bureau  as  

Assistant, his placing in the seniority list of the  

said unit is at Serial No.65 out of 112 Assistants.  

Similarly, he was allotted/ transferred to Aviation  

Research  Centre  on  trifurcation  of  Directorate  

General  of  Secretarial  Service  and  is  borne  on  

Aviation Research Centre's strength and his placing  

in the the seniority list would be at Srl. No.28,  

out  of  46  posts  of  Assistants  allotted  to  the  

Aviation  Research  Centre.  Suresh  Kumar  Nayak,  

Assistant  was  not  interested  to  be  transferred/  

allocated to Special Frontier Force on trifurcation.  

22. According  to  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant, if the chances of promotion are affected,

12

even then it would not be a case where the Court  

would  be  justified  in  allowing  the  original  

application  on  the  ground  of  infringement  of  the  

respondent's  fundamental  rights  under  Articles  14  

and 16 of the Constitution.  

23. Learned counsel for appellant placed reliance  

on a judgment of this Court in S.P. Shivprasad Pipal  

vs.  Union of India and Ors., (1998) 4 SCC 598. In  

this  case,  by  notification  dated  3.2.1987,  the  

Central Labour Service was created by merging the  

following three cadres:  

(a)  Central  Industrial  Relations  Machinery consisting of Assistant Labour  Commissioner  (Central),  Regional  Labour  Commissioner  (Central),  Deputy  Chief  Labour Commissioner (Central, Joint Chief  Labour  Commissioner  (Central)  and  Chief  Labour Commissioner (Central).

(b)  Labour  officers  (Central  pool)  consisting of Labour Officers and senior  labour Officers.

(c)  Labour  Welfare  Commissioners’  cadre  consisting  of  Assistant  Welfare  Commissioner and Welfare Commissioner.

24.   This Court observed as under:

“A  decision  to  merge  such  cadres  is  

essentially  a  matter  of  policy.  Since  the

13

three cadres carried the same pay scale at  

the  relevant  time,  merging  of  the  three  

cadres  cannot  be  said  to  have  caused  any  

prejudice  to  the  members  of  any  of  the  

cadres. The total number of posts were also  

increased  proportionately  when  the  merger  

took place so that the percentage of posts  

available on promotion was not in any manner  

adversely  affected  by  the  merger  of  the  

cadres.”

25. This  Court  laid  down  that  when  different  

cadres  are  merged,  certain  principles  have  to  be  

borne in mind. These principles were enunciated in  

the  case  of  State  of  Maharashtra  and  Anr. vs.  

Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and Ors., (1981) 4 SCC  

130 and have been approved subsequently in the case  

of  S.P.  Shivprasad  Pipal (supra)  and  they  are  

reproduced  as under:

 (1)  where  there  were  regularly  

constituted  similar  cadres  in  the  

different  integrating  units  the  cadres  

will  ordinarily  be  integrated  on  that  

basis but  

(2) where there were no such similar  

cadres,  the  following  factors  will  be  

taken  into  consideration  in  determining  

the equation of posts:-

(a) Nature and duties of a post;

14

(b)  Powers  exercised  by  the  officers  

holding a post the extent of territorial  

or other charge held or responsibilities  

discharged;

(c) The minimum qualifications, if any,  

prescribed  for  recruitment  to  the  post  

and;

(d) the salary of the post.

26. In the Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni (supra) this  

Court has laid down the principle that mere chances  

of promotion are not conditions of service  and the  

fact  that  there  was  reduction  in  the  chances  of  

promotion  did  not  tantamount  to  a  change  in  the  

conditions of service. A right to be considered for  

promotion is a term of service, but mere chances of  

promotion are not.

27. In  the  instant  case,  even  according  to  the  

appellant,  the  chances  of  promotion  have  in  fact  

been increased.

28. Mr. K.L. Bhandula, learned counsel appearing  

for the respondent has not been able to make out  

that  his  case  falls  in  any  of  the  four  criteria

15

which have been laid down in the case of Shivprasad  

Pipal (supra).  

29. In this view of the matter, we are constrained  

to set aside the impugned judgment dated 13.11.2002  

of  the  Tribunal  as  well  as  the  judgment  dated  

6.11.2003 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Civil  

Writ Petition No.3000/2003.

30. Consequently,  this  appeal  is  allowed.  The  

original application filed by the respondent stands  

dismissed.  In  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  

case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.  

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (H.L. GOKHALE)

New Delhi; November 25, 2010.