Supreme Court dismisses challenge to CAT direction, holds regularisation as CTO precludes treating employee as HPO for promotion

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan heard an appeal by R.P. Azad against the Delhi High Court judgment upholding a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order dated 2 December 2008. The principal issue concerned whether the appellant, originally appointed as a Junior Field Officer (JFO), could be treated as a Handicrafts Promotion Officer (HPO) for promotional purposes or was to be regarded as a Carpet Training Officer (CTO) following a sequence of redesignations and regularisation orders.

The Court dismissed the appeal and held that the appellant had accepted and not challenged earlier orders which led to his regularisation in the cadre of CTOs; consequently the Court found no basis to direct that he be treated as an HPO for promotion. The Court noted that the CAT had given an alternative relief — to create promotional avenues or to extend financial upgradation — and that the respondents had complied by granting financial upgradations including MACP benefits. The Court recorded that promotional channels claimed by the appellant were available only to HPOs and that no order ever directed that the appellant be treated as an HPO. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The order dated 2nd December 1999 of the CAT directs the regularisation of the appellant and others in the regular vacancies of CTOs. By the order dated 26th June 2006, the respondents regularised the service of the appellant as a CTO in the pay scale of Rs 5500-175-9000. In the further order dated 6th July 2007, a direction was issued to consider the case of the appellant for promotion by considering promotional avenues available to CTOs. Therefore, the sum and substance of the impugned orders is that no direction was ever issued to treat the appellant as HPO.”

Background

The appellant was appointed on 15 July 1976 as a JFO (Group B non‑gazetted) on an ad‑hoc/temporary basis in the Carpet Weaving Training Centre, Jalalpur, Varanasi. By an order dated 15 February 1978, JFOs in the carpet centres were redesignated as CTOs (Group C) with a downgraded pay scale. Separately, an order dated 4 June 1979 redesignated certain JFOs as Handicrafts Promotion Officers (HPOs) and provided that “The services rendered by the persons concerned in the posts of Junior Field Officers in the All India Handicrafts Board will count for all purposes including seniority, leave, increment, confirmation etc. in the posts of Handicrafts Promotion Officers.” The appellant’s pay scale was restored on a personal basis by order dated 16 May 1997, but his designation as CTO remained.

The appellant approached the CAT by OA No. 2921/1997; by order dated 2 December 1999 the CAT directed regularisation of the appellant and similarly situated persons in regular vacancies of CTOs and consideration for promotion subject to availability. The respondents regularised the appellant as a CTO with effect from his date of appointment by order dated 26 June 2006, a decision that the appellant did not challenge. When promotional avenues were not forthcoming because the carpet scheme had been closed, the CAT in OA No. 2351/2007 (order 2 December 2008) directed that either promotional avenues be created or financial upgradation be extended; the CAT fixed six months for compliance. The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the CAT order, and the appellant appealed.

The Supreme Court observed that the appellant had consistently been treated and ultimately regularised as a CTO pursuant to the CAT directions and UPSC concurrence; therefore the Court was unable to issue directions to treat him as an HPO or to order further promotion. The Court noted that the respondents had granted financial upgradations (ACPs/MACP) in lieu of promotion per the alternative provided by the CAT. The appeal was dismissed on 20 May 2025.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 740 (Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2011) Case Title: RAMPAT AZAD (R.P. AZAD) v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, Amicus Curiae / Advocate‑on‑Record For the Respondent(s): Counsels for Union of India and others (names not specified in the judgment)