CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 1996 › U O I v. Vinod Kumar

U O I v. Vinod Kumar

Supreme Court of India · 15 July 1996

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
15 July 1996
Case no.
C.A. No. 9817 of 1996
Bench
Ramaswamy, K.
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
VINOD KUMAR & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/07/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCALE (5)696

ACT

HEADNOTE

JUDGMENT

ORDER

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

We have heard the learned counsel.

The only short question is whether the deviation from rule of granting promotion of 50% of the quota giving 2 years additional benefit to the Upper Division Clerks is valid in law? Sub-section [71](a) of Section 5-D of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 provides method of recruitment as under:

"7(a) The method of recruitment,

salary and allowances, discipline

and other conditions of service of

the Additional Central Provident

Fund Commissioner, Deputy

Provident, Fund Commissioner,

Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Assistant Provident

Fund Commissioner and other

officers and employees of the

Central Board shall be such as may

be specified by the Central Board

in accordance with the Rules and

orders applicable to the officers

and employees of the Central

Government drawing corresponding

scales of pay.

Provided that where the

Central Board is of the opinion

that it is necessary to make a

departure from the said rules or

orders in respect of any of the

matters aforesaid, it shall obtain

the prior approval of the Central

Government."

Under the proviso, where the Central Board is of the opinion that it is necessary to make a departure from the said rules or orders in respect of any of the matters enumerated above it is mandatory that it should obtain prior approval of the Central Government. Admittedly, prior approval was not obtained. On the other hand, ex post facto approval was obtained but in the teeth of the language of the proviso ex post facto approval is not an approval in the eye of law. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal had rightly held that the approval was not valid in law and the matter was kept at large and directed the appellant to issue notification afresh for recruitment in accordance With rules. We do not find any legality in the order.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Ask CaseMinister about U O I v. Vinod Kumar

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp