Union of India & Ors Vs. Vinod Kumar
& Ors  INSC 804 (15 July 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
1996 SCALE (5)696
O R D
have heard the learned counsel.
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 (a) of Section 5-D of the Employees Provident
Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 provides method of recruitment as
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.
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.
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.