Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
A R Balasundaram vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 31 January, 2024
1 OA No.310/00557/2014
`CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00557/2014
Dated this the 31st January, Two Thousand Twenty Four
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI,MEMBER(A)
AND
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER(J)
A.R. Balasundaram,
S/o C. Raman Nair,
Technical Officer (Retired),
"Krishna",
46, P&T Colony, III Street,
Koundampalayam Colony P.O.<
Coimbatore. .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s T.M. Naveen
Vs.
1. Indian Council for Agricultural Research,
rep by its Director General,
Krishi Bhawan,
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi.
2.The Deputy Secretary (TS),
Indian Council for Agricultural Research,
Krishi Bhavan,
Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi.
3.The Director,
Sugarcane Breeding Institute,
Veerakeralam,
Coimbatore. .. Respondents
By Advocate M/s Karthik, Mukundan & Neelakantan
2 OA No.310/00557/2014
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi,Member(A) The applicant has filed the OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"to call for the records relating to the Circular bearing F.No.4(13)/2008-Estt.IV dt.11.06.2012 on the file of the 2nd respondent and the letter bearing F.No.2-2/2012-13/C&B dt. 21.03.2014 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to restore the system of Merit Promotion from one grade to the next higher grade irrespective of occurrence of vacancies in the higher grade or grant of Advance increment(s) in the same grade on the basis of assessment of performance etc provided in Rule 6.1 of the ICAR Technical Service Rules and pass such further or other order or orders that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice."
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsels on both the sides fairly submitted that the issue involved in the present case has already been decided by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, vide its order, dated 08.12.2015, in O.A.No.862 of 2014. Hence, both the counsels pray that the present OA may be disposed of in terms of the above said Principal Bench order.
3. With reference to the grievance of the applicant relating to the 3 OA No.310/00557/2014 Circular dated 11.06.2012, issued by the respondent, on the subject of grant of advance increments to technical employees of the ICAR consequent to the implementation of the recommendations of the VI Pay Commission, the Principal Bench of this Tribunal has dealt with the issue in detail, in paragraphs 7 to 11 of its order, dated 08.12.2015. The relevant portions are extracted as hereunder:
'7. It is the admitted position between the parties that the Governing Body of the ICAR is competent to frame Rules and also to amend the same. As rightly contended by the respondents, the power of the Governing Body of the ICAR to make Rules and amend them also includes its power to give retrospective effect to the Rules so framed. In the circular dated 22.4.2013, ibid, it has been clearly stated that the Governing Body of the ICAR, in its 226th meeting held on 14.2.2013, approved the amendment in Rule 6.1 and paragraph 10 of Appendix III for Categories I, II and III under Rule 6.13 of the Technical Service Rules to the extent that only one advance increment would be granted in the same grade on the basis of assessment of performance of the employees in the Technical Service after expiry of the number of the prescribed years of service, and that the rate of advance increment w.e.f. 1.1.2006 would be as mentioned in the circular dated 11.6.2012, ibid. The Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "CCS (RP) Rules, 2008"), which were promulgated by the Government of India on 29.9.2008, came into force with effect from 1.1.2006. The systems of Pay Band with Grade Pay, and increment calculated at 3% of the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay, were introduced by the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, and, as a consequence thereof, the concepts of pay scale, and fixed increment in the pay scale, which existed prior to 1.1.2006, stood obliterated with effect from 1.1.2006. In view of this, consequent upon implementation of the CCS (RP) 4 OA No.310/00557/2014 Rules, 2008, the ICAR, vide its circular dated 11.6.2012, ibid, in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, reviewed the grant of advance increment(s) to the employees in the Technical Service, and decided that the pay of the employees of the Technical Service, who had been granted advance increment(s) prior to 1.1.2006, would be fixed in the revised pay structure at the stage, at which their basic pay was as on 1.1.2006. In the case of employees who had been granted advance increment(s) between 1.1.2006 and 31.8.2008, under the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, such employees would only be granted annual increment on 1st of July of every year, and no advance increment(s), corresponding to the advance increment(s) granted under the pre-revised pay scale, would be granted to them during the period between 1.1.2006 and 31.8.2008 while making their due-drawn statement. During this period, the advance increment would be given as per the fixed amount approved by the Ministry of Finance. Thus, all those employees in the Technical Service of ICAR, who have been recommended for grant of advance increments, would be granted only one advance increment with effect from 1.1.2006. It was also decided that in cases where more than one advance increments had already been paid from 1.1.2006, the same would be restricted to only one advance increment at the prescribed rate, and necessary recovery of the excess payment, if any, would be made. Accordingly, the Governing Body of the ICAR also approved the amendment in Rule 6.1 and paragraph 10 of Appendix III for Categories I, II and III under Rule 6.13 of the Technical Service Rules with effect from 1.1.2006 to the extent that only one advance increment would be granted in the same grade at the prescribed rate on the basis of assessment of performance of the employees in the Technical Service after the expiry of the number of the prescribed years of service. The said amendment, as approved by the Governing Body, was duly notified by the ICAR, vide its circular dated 22.4.2013, ibid.
In the above view of the matter, we do not find any arbitrariness, or irrationality, or unreasonableness, in the circulars dated 11.6.2012 and 22.4.2013, ibid.
5 OA No.310/00557/20148. When the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, which were promulgated by the Government of India on 29.8.2008, came into force with effect from 1.1.2006, and when the applicant became entitled to the pay and allowances, increments, etc., as per the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, with effect from 1.1.2006, and further when in the wake of implementation of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, the ICAR, or for that matter the Governing Body of ICAR, amended the relevant Rules with effect from 1.1.2006, and under the amended Rules the applicant was entitled to only one advance increment at the prescribed rate with effect from 1.1.2007, we do not find any substance in the contention of the applicant that the circulars dated 11.6.2012 and 22.4.2013, ibid, are violative of the basic principles of natural justice, and doctrine of equity.
9. The applicant has not refuted the assertions made by the respondents in their counter reply that as per Rule 21 of the Bye-laws of the Society, the posts in the ICAR are categorized into four distinct and different services, viz., (i) Scientific, (ii) Technical, (c ) Administrative, and (d) Supporting, and that merit promotions are granted to the personnel in the Technical Service from one grade to the next higher grade within the category, irrespective of the occurrence of vacancies in the higher grade, on the basis of assessment of their performance as per the provisions of the Technical Service Rules, whereas promotions are granted to the personnel in the Administrative Service on the occurrence of vacancies in the higher grade of their cadre under the Rules governing their promotions. Since under the provisions of the Bye-laws of the Society, the personnel in the Technical Service, and the personnel in the Administrative Service belong to two different and distinct cadres, and the rules governing their promotions are also different, the applicant and other personnel belonging to the Technical Service of the ICAR cannot be said to have a valid grievance with regard to restriction on the number of promotions available to them on the ground that the personnel in the Administrative Service are granted promotions 6 OA No.310/00557/2014 without any restriction on the number thereof. The applicant and other personnel in the Technical Service, not being similarly placed as personnel in the Administrative Service, cannot claim the same promotional prospects as available to the personnel in the Administrative Service, nor can they challenge the withdrawal of more than one advance increments, or the grant of one advance increment at the prescribed rate with effect from 1.1.2006, or the recovery of the excess amount, on the ground of restriction on the number of promotions to the personnel in the Technical Service. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the contentions of the applicant that the restriction on the number of promotions in the case of the personnel in the Technical Service is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and that due to the restriction on the number of promotions in the case of the personnel in the Technical Service, the withdrawal of advance increments, the grant of one advance increment at the prescribed rate with effect from 1.1.2006, and the order of recovery of the excess amount, are bad and illegal.
10. As regards the DoP&T's O.M. dated 6.12.2012, ibid, relying on which the applicant also questions the validity and legality of the circulars dated 11.6.2012 and 22.4.2013, ibid, we have found that the said DoP&T's O.M. dated 6.12.2012 relates to the Stenographers in Subordinate Offices of the Central Government, while the ICAR is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, and the Governing Body of the Society is the authority which is competent to frame and amend the Rules relating to grant of advance increments to the personnel in the Technical Service of ICAR. When the Rules governing the promotions and grant of advance increments to the personnel in the Technical Service of the ICAR, and the Rules governing the promotions and the decisions regarding the grant of advance increments to the Stenographers in Subordinate Offices of the Central Government are distinctly different, the applicant or, for that matter, other personnel in the Technical Service of the ICAR, 7 OA No.310/00557/2014 cannot claim as a matter of right to be granted advance increments as admissible to the Stenographers of Subordinate Offices of the Central Government. Therefore, the DoP&T's O.M. dated 6.12.2012, ibid, is of no help to the case of the applicant'
4. As regards to the recovery mentioned in the Circular, dated 11.06.2012, the same has been discussed in paragraphs 11 to 13 of the order of the Principal Bench. The relevant portions are extracted as hereunder:
'11. As regards the question of recovery of excess amount from the applicant and other similarly placed personnel in the Technical Service of the ICAR, in terms of the circulars dated 11.6.2012 and 22.4.2013, ibid, the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & others, etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), etc. (supra) in support of his contention that advance increments having been granted to him with effect from 1.1.2007 under the Rules, the respondents ought not to have ordered the recovery in question after the lapse of more than five years.
11.2 Admittedly, the applicant was granted three advance increments with effect from 1.1.2007 under the provisions of the Technical Service Rules, vide office order dated 17.12.2008 (Annexure A/5). The excess amount paid to the applicant and other similarly placed personnel in the Technical Service of ICAR was not on account of any misrepresentation made by them, nor was it on account of any fraud committed by them. The excess amount became recoverable from them only in terms of the circulars dated 11.6.2012 and 22.4.2013, ibid, by which Rule 8 OA No.310/00557/2014 6(1) and paragraph 10 of Appendix III for Categories I, II and III under Rule 6.13 of the Technical Service Rules were amended with effect from 1.1.2006. Therefore, as per the ruling given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 12 (iii) of the judgment in State of Punjab & others, etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), etc. (supra), the recovery of the excess amount from the applicant and other similarly placed personnel in the Technical Service of ICAR, as ordered by the respondents in June 2012 and April 2013, is impermissible in law.
12. In the light of our above discussions, while upholding all other provisions of the circulars dated 11.6.2012 and 22.4.2013 (Annexure A/1 and Annexure A/2), we quash the decision of the respondents to recover the excess amount from the applicant and other similarly placed personnel in the Technical Service of the ICAR, as contained in the said circulars. Consequently, the respondents are directed not to recover the said excess amount from the applicant and other similarly placed personnel in the Technical Service of the ICAR. '
5. The present OA is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal cited supra In terms of the said order, while upholding all other provisions of the Circular, dated 11.06.2012, we quash the decision of the respondents to recover the excess amount from the applicant and other similarly placed personnel in the Technical Service of the ICAR, as contained in the said Circlar. Consequently, the respondents are directed not to recover the said excess amount from the applicant and other similarly placed personnel in the Technical Service of the ICAR.
9 OA No.310/00557/20145. In the result, the O.A. is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.
6. In view of the above, the interim relief granted by this Tribunal on 11.04.2014 to stay the operation of the Circular, dated 11.06.2012 stands vacated and, in respect of the recovery order, dated 21.03.2014, the stay is made absolute.
(M. SWAMINATHAN) (VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)
31. 01.2024
mas