CWP No. 6802 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 6802 of 2008 Date of decision 19 .1.2010 Udham Singh and others ... Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan ,Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3 Mr. Heman Aggarwal, Addl. Central Govt. Standing counsel for UOI- respondent no.1. 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant petition is directed against order dated 23.11.2007 passed by the Chandigarh Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') in OA No. 314-CH-2004 (P.1). The petitioners who have been working as Inspector Grade II (Audit) had earlier approached the Tribunal by filing OA No. 68-CH-2000 which was disposed of vide order dated 22.7.2002 with the direction that the respondent- Union Territory, Chandigarh would take steps by taking up the matter for up- gradation/creation of posts of Inspector Grade I (Audit) with the Government of India within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. They were also required to pass appropriate orders. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions, the prayer of the petitioners for merging the post of Sub Inspector (Audit) and also for re-designated as Inspector Grade II and then merged in the Inspector Grade I cadre was declined. The reasons CWP No. 6802 of 2008 2 for aforesaid decision have been disclosed in the order dated 24.2.2004 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (P3) relevant portion of which reads as under: “ (a) The merger of Sub Inspector (Audit) proposed to be redesignated as Inspector Grade II into Inspector Grade I entails abolition of the former posts and creation in lieu thereof an equal number of posts in the higher grade for which there is no functional justification; and (b)There exists at present a ban on creation of posts in the interest of economy in expenditure. Now therefore the Government of India after taking into consideration all relevant aspects of the matter have decided that while the post of sub Inspector (Audit) in the office of Registrar, Cooperative Societies, UT., Administration Chandigarh be re-designated as Inspector (Audit) Grade II without in any manner altering the charter of functions and duties currently assigned to the post but there is no justification to merge the post so designated as Inspector (audit) Grade II into Inspector Grade I.” However, the respondents gave the petitioner a limited relief in as much as the post of Sub Inspector (Audit) was ordered to be redesignated as Inspector (Audit) Grade II but it was not to alter the charter of functions and duties currently assigned to that post. The prayer for merger of the post of Inspector Grade II (Audit) to Inspector Grade I (Audit) was rejected. The order dated 24.2.2004 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs was challenged once again before the Tribunal. CWP No. 6802 of 2008 3 Accordingly, the Tribunal has upheld the view taken by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and has dismissed the Original Application by the impugned order dated 23.11.2007. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and find that the grievance of the petitioners is wholly unfounded. The Tribunal as well as the Government of India has taken the correct view by holding that there has been no functional justification for merger of Inspector Grade II (Audit) with Inspector Grade I (Audit). We also find substance in the contention of the counsel for the respondents that up- gradation or merger of posts cannot be regarded as condition of service and to that extent the rules known as Conditions of Service of Union Territory Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1992 would not come to the rescue of the petitioners (P.4). Further more, the cadre of Inspector Grade I and Grade II (Audit) is very small and there is not so much of quantum of work therefore, the claim of the petitioners has been found to be without any foundation. The up-gradation of posts would also involve payment of higher pay scale and creation of new posts in the higher cadre. The Tribunal also noticed that there was a ban on creation of posts due to financial constraints, which is a part of policy matter. Accordingly we do not find any ground to admit the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jitendra Chauhan) 19.1.2010 Judge okg