Surender Singh And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors.

V. Ajay Kumar, J

OA No.3387/2013 filed by the applicants, who are Constables in Border Security Force (in short BSF), challenging the action of the respondents in not absorbing them as Lower Division Clerks in the Central Civil Accounts Service (in short CCAS) on par with certain other BSF Constables, was dismissed by this Tribunal by order dated 05.01.2017.

Seeking review of the said order, the instant RA was filed by the applicants, along with an MA No.2661/2017 seeking condonation of delay in filing the review.

Heard Mrs. Priyanka Bhardwaj for Shri M.K. Bhardwaj, the learned counsel for the review applicants and Shri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the pleadings on record.

In the circumstances and for the reasons mentioned therein, and in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the RA is condoned and accordingly the MA is allowed.

While dismissing the OA of the applicants, this Tribunal observed as under:-

"8. It is a matter of common sense that CCAS cadre is a cadre which is meant for handling accounts and only those engaged in accounts, form the core of the cadre. LDCs are also included for ministerial work. Moreover, the option of PAD, BSF staff involved in accounts work of CCAS cadre, cannot be said to apply to all BSF personnel assigned to PAD, BSF. The applicants clearly were on temporary assignment for guard duty. Various orders placed on record make it clear that the applicants were assigned guard duties. Moreover, only those were considered for absorption, who came against sanctioned posts and on deputation/attachment. The applicants do not satisfy these criteria.

It is also clear that Sampat Singh Rathore was on a different footing from the applicants because he came against a sanctioned post and functioned as LDC. The applicants functioned on guard duty on temporary basis and not against any sanctioned post. Therefore, the judgment in Sampat Singh Rathore (supra) will not apply. Similarly, the facts related to Shri Praveen Saini and Shri Subodh Kumar are different from the facts related to the applicants and no parity can be drawn.

Lastly, it is not that the applicants have been discriminated against. The respondents have followed their policy in respect of the applicants and all other similarly placed persons. In our view, the OA is completely misplaced and deserves to be dismissed. It is, therefore, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs".

Mrs. Priyanka Bhardwaj, the learned counsel appearing for the review applicants submits that the applicants as well Shri Praveen Saini and Shri Subodh Kumar were identically placed and all of them while working as Constables in BSF were relieved to work in the CCAS and hence, the applicants are also entitled for absorption on par with the said persons.

On the other hand, Shri A.K. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the applicants were not working against any sanctioned posts and on the other hand they were admittedly, discharging Guard duties and those BSF Constables who worked in Accounts Sections, were only absorbed.

The learned counsel for the review applicants tried to re-argue the OA on merits, which is impermissible, as per the settled principles of law, in an RA.

In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the RA or any error apparent and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs.