Management Has Right To Restructure Cadres And Merge Posts, Tribunals Can't Interfere With Policy Decisions: Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack

The bench stated that it could not interfere with such policy decisions unless they violated fundamental rights, and statutory provisionsstatutory provisions, or were manifestly arbitrary. The Research Centre's decision to merge the post of the aggrieved Workman with Group D instead of providing a promotion was held to be justified.

Brief Facts:

The Workman was employed as a Jr. Field Assistant (Aircraft Assistant) at the Aviation Research Centre (“Centre/Management”), Charbatia, Odisha. According to the Workman, the Centre was established in 1963, and various changes were made regarding the classification and qualifications required for different posts over the years. The Workman was appointed as an Aircraft Assistant in 1988 and despite possessing the qualifications for promotional avenues, he was not promoted. The Management merged the post of Jr. Field Assistant (Aircraft Assistant) with Group D instead of providing the anticipated promotion. Feeling aggrieved, the Workman filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack (“Tribunal”).

In response, the Management contended that the Workman was recruited in 1988 under specific pay scales and that the redesignation of posts and changes in classification were made in accordance with government policies. Further, the Workman, being part of the Multi-Tasking Staff (“MTS”) designation, was not entitled to separate treatment from the MTS category. The Management emphasized that the matter involved policy decisions and judicial interference was not warranted.

Observations of the Tribunal:

The Tribunal noted that a similar matter had been considered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, in Khimananda & Ors vs UOI & Ors [O.A. No. 297/2015], where the Applicants, initially appointed as Aircraft Assistants (ACAs) matric in Group C, raised grievances regarding the merger of Group C and D cadres, alleging it was detrimental to their promotional prospects. The CAT, Allahabad Bench, dismissed the application and held that a tribunal does not have the power to direct the formation of a policy.

The aforementioned case also referred to Union of India vs Air Commodore NK Sharma, which highlighted the limited scope of judicial review in matters of policy decisions by the executive wing of the government. It emphasized that courts do not interfere with policy decisions unless they violate fundamental rights, and statutory provisions, or are manifestly arbitrary.

Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to the case of P.U. Joshi & Ors. vs The Accountant General, Ahmedabad [AIR 2003 SC 2156], where the Supreme Court held that decisions regarding the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, and avenues of promotion fall within the domain of the State and its discretion. The Tribunal also cited a decision by the CAT, Ernakulam Bench, in Pankajakshan Nair vs Union of India [OA No. 180/01090/2014], which upheld the reorganization of cadre structures and merger of cadres by the Management and found it justified and within their rights as employers.

In light of these observations, the Tribunal concluded that the Workman's claim lacked merit as it was a matter of policy. Therefore, the original application was dismissed.

Case Title: Manoranjan Mishra vs Union of India and Others

Case No.: O.A. No. 260/00176 of 2016

Advocate for the Applicant: Mr T. Rath

Advocate for the Respondents: Mr S. Behera

Click Here To Read Order