Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
P.N. Giri vs The Union Of India Through It S Secretary on 24 July, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH JABALPUR Original Application Nos.370, 371 & 372 of 2013 Jabalpur, this Friday, the 24th day of July, 2015 MR. G.P. SINGHAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER MR. U. SARATHCHANDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. P.N. Giri, s/o B.P. Giri, aged about 46 years, resident of H.No.37-A, Kasturba Nagar, Bhopal, M.P. 462011.
2. Anil Kumar K, s/o late K.K. Pillai, aged about 43 years, Resident of H.No.59-A, Awadhpuri, Khajurikalan, Piplani, P.O. Bhopal, M.P. 462011.
3. Ashok Kumar Yadav, s/o late Ram Singh Yadav, Aged about 46 years, R/o Ward No.15, Sharda Colony, Malakhedi Road, Hoshangabad, M.P. 461001.
4. Dinesh Kumar Mishra, s/o Shri Ram Narayan Mishra, Aged about 49 years, r/o G-7/26, Noth T.T. Nagar, Bhopal, M.P 462011.
5. Sunil Khare, s/o Shri D.E. Khare, r/o Type-III/48, CPWD Colony, Bharat Ngar, Shahpura, Bhopal, M.P. 462011.
6. Anil Kumar O.R., s/o Shri Raman Nair, r/o Sarvadharam Colony, Kollar Road, Bhopal 462011. -Applicants in O.A 370/2013 Hari Shanker Gour, s/o Shri R.D. Gour, aged about 44 years, R/o P&T Colony, Jawaher Chowk, Kotra, Bhopal, M.P 462011 -Applicant in O.A 371/2013 Rajendra Kumar Magare, s/o Shri Shankar Rao Magare, Aged about 53 years, R/o Type II/18, CPWD Colony, Bharat Nagar, Bhopal, M.P. 462011. -Applicant in O.A 372/2013 (By Advocate Shri Abhilash Dey in all three O.As) V e r s u s
1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, India, 110001.
2. The Director General of Health Services, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110011.
3. The Director, National Vector Borne Deceased Control Programme, 22-Sham Nath Marg, Delhi 110054.
4. The Sr. Regional Director, Regional Office for Health & FW, 32, Purjor House, M.P. Nagar, Zone-I, Bhopal M.P 462003.
5. The Administrative Officer, Regional Office for Health & FW, NVBDCP, 32, Purjor House, M.P. Nagar, Zone-I, Bhopal M.P 462003. -Common Respondents (By Advocate Shri A.T. Faridee in all three O.As) (Date of reserving order :22.7.2015) C O M M O N O R D E R By U. Sarathchandran, JM :-
MA 397/2013 filed by the applicants in O.A 370/2013 for joining together is allowed.
2. Since the common issue involved in these O.As is the grievance of applicants in counting their services only with effect from the date of their absorption in the government service, i.e. 29.9.1995 for the purpose of granting the MACP benefits, they are being disposed of by this common order.
3. Applicants were initially appointed on different dates and in different posts like Laboratory Assistant, Library Assistant, Chowkidar-cum-Peon, Driver etc in the scheme known as Malaria Operational Field Research Scheme (hereinafter referred to as MOFRS) under the respondent No.1. When they made claim for financial upgardation under the MACP scheme from the date of initial appointment, respondents took the stand that they will be entitled for MACP only from the date of their absorption i.e. 29.9.1995.
4. For appreciating the grievances of the applicants a brief history of their employment in the present posts needs to be narrated.
5. As stated earlier they were initially appointed in different posts in MOFRS under the first respondent. Later this scheme was integrated as National Malaria Eradication Programme (NMEP). Subsequently the Honble President of India sanctioned to create 156 temporary posts under the directorates of NMEP and the Family Welfare and directed that the posts will be filled up by transfer of existing incumbent working under the MOFRS. This had been considered and taken note of by Honble Apex Court in All India P Falciferum Welfare Association v. Union of India & Ors. [WP (C) No.402/1993].
6. After absorption of the employees of MOFRS, some of them approached Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal seeking for grant of benefit of absorption in the new posts and for a direction to treat them as having been regularly appointed w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment and to extend them all consequential benefits from their transfer on absorption as per the courts order and the monetary benefits. The O.A was allowed by the Bangalore Bench. Union of India took up the decision of the Tribunal to the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No.2722/2001 and the connected cases. In that Writ Petition by way of a common order, High Court of Karnataka upheld the order of the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal. The order of the Karnataka High Court was again challenged by the Union of India and others in Civil Appeal Nos.444-450/2002 before the Apex Court. The Apex Court confirmed order of the Karnataka High Court vide Annexure R-1. At the end of Annexure R-1 order the Apex Court held:
However, it is made clear that with regard to Assured Career Progression respondents would be entitled to get benefit only from the date of absorption.
7. Applicants are claiming the benefit of applicability of MACP scheme from the date of joining in the initial appointment, in the light of the orders passed by the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal, confirmed by the High Court of Karnataka and Supreme Court of India. MACP is a modified version of the ACP scheme introduced by the Government of India to give financial upgradation when there is stagnation of more than 10 years. It is a modified version of ACP scheme wherein the financial upgradation was granted only after a period of 12 years and 24 years.. In MACP the financial upgradations have been increased to three, at the 10th, 20th and 30th years of service respectively. Since MACP is basically a modification of ACP and the essentials of it being the same that of the ACP, we are of the view that in the light of the aforequoted order of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.444-450/2002 (Annexure R-1), the decision of the respondent authorities in Annexure A-1 that applicants are entitled to financial upgradation under the MACP only from the date of their absorption does not warrant any interference by this Tribunal. Hence we find no merit in these O.As.
8. In view of the above, O.As are dismissed. No order as to costs.
(U. Sarathchandran) (G.P.Singhal) Judicial Member Administrative Member am 4 OAs 370, 371 & 372/2013 Page 4 of 4