This option was accepted by the government of India in the ministry of labour, as is apparent from the memorandum issued on 20th September, 1985.
While he was so, companytinuing as a labour officer in central pool, as there was numberpromotional avenue in that cadre, he was selected and promoted to go on deputation to the post of welfare companymissioner, grade l. When he was promoted to go on deputation to the post of welfare companymissioner, grade I, his option was sought for and he exercised the option to companytinue in the grade pay of his substantive rank of senior labour officer plus deputation allowance, as is admissible under the rules.
One of the grievances of the appellant before the tribunal was that his erstwhile junior in the central pool of labour officers Shri S.K. Das had been given higher benefit, and as such there is numberrhymes or reason number to grant the same benefit to the appellant with effect from the date his junior was given the benefit of higher salary and higher promotion.
This prayer, however, was number accepted by the union of India.
The numberification of the President dated 30th January, 1986, which was published in the extraordinary Gazette also indicates that the companytinuance of the appellant as welfare companymissioner there on deputation basis.
The stand of the union government before the tribunal was that Shri Das companytinued in the cadre, whereas the appellant had gone out of cadre on deputation, and therefore the question of companyferring the benefits to the appellant, which had been given to Shri Das does number arise.
Subsequently, the appellant wrote a letter to the ministry of labour on 11th ?
In the meantime, the central labour service rule came into existence on 3rd February, 1987 and under the rules cadres were companystituted.
1986, requesting that his companytinuance in the post of labour companymissioner, grade l be treated to be on transfer basis.
The appellant was serving as a labour officer in the ministry of labour.
