Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramachandran P vs Indian Institute Of Science on 5 March, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.24643 OF 2019 (S-RES)
BETWEEN
SRI RAMACHANDRAN P
S/O LATE PONNUSWAMY S R
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
SCIENTIFIC OFFICER GRADE-II
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560 012
KARNATAKA
INDIA ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JANARDHANA G, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560 012
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
(AN AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTION
FUNDED AND CONTROLLED BY
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES
& DEVELOPMENT
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
2. SRI NAGA KRISHNA V
S/O SUBBYAHMANYAM V V
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC OFFICER -II
-2-
IN DESE DEPARTMENT
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560 012
3. SRI K NAGASHETTY
S/O SMT SASHIKALA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC OFFICER -II
IN AE DEPARTMENT
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560 012.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRADEEP S.SAWKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED 17/10/2019;
R3 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE R-1
GRANTING GRADE - PAY OF RS.5,400/- IN TERMS OF THE
6TH CENRAL PAY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION WITH
RELEVANT PAY WITH EFFECT FROM 18.11.2007 ON PAR
WITH THE SAME GRANTED TO SRI.SATHYAMURTHY K.N.
AND FURTHER DIRECT IT TO GRANT SCIENTIIFC OFFICER-
GRADE-II PROMOTION FROM 16.12.2011 AND SCIENTIFIC
OFFICER GRADE-I PROMOTION FROM 18.11.2016 WITH
ALL MONETARY AND SERVICE BENEFITS AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner who had a Diploma in Computer Engineering and Diploma in Electrical Engineering, was appointed as Computer Operator, with the first respondent-Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, in the year 1988. He was confirmed in the said post in the year 1990. In the year 1994, he was evaluated and placed in the next higher scale at Rs.1640-60- 2600-75-2900 with Basic Pay of Rs.1760/-, without change in his designation. In the year 2000, the petitioner was once again evaluated on a higher Pay Scale of Rs.6500-200-10450 and Basic Pay of Rs.7,100/- however, with the same designation. On 20.12.2006, the petitioner was appointed as Scientific Assistant along with few other persons including Sri.Sathyamurthy K.N. The grievance of the petitioner insofar as Sri.Sthyamurthy K.N. is concerned, is that, although, he was appointed to the post of Scientific -4- Assistant on the same day i.e., 20.12.2006, however, Sri.Satyamurthy K.N. was given a higher grade pay of Rs.5,400/- with effect from 30.05.2007 when compared to the petitioner being granted a Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/-. Sri.Satyamurthy K.N. has since attained the age of superannuation and therefore he is not made a party to these proceedings.
2. The petitioner has vented two more grievances. Firstly, that in terms of the resolution dated 23.09.2017 of the Council of the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, the promotional avenue for the Scientific Assistants to be promoted to the post of Scientific Officers Grade-II, having been restored while it was specifically resolved that those who had become Scientific Assistants by direct recruitment and had registered for the M.Sc.(Engg)/ Ph.D before 20.06.2008, pursued their studies/ research and got their Degrees subsequently, shall be restored the promotional avenues to the cadre of -5- Scientific Officer as was available to them before 20.06.2008 as per the norms that prevailed before 20.06.2008, and the petitioner having acquired M.Sc. Degree as on 16.12.2011, is entitled for retrospective promotion from the date when he acquired the Degree, albeit, the petitioner was actually promoted as Scientific Officer with effect from 18.11.2017.
3. The second grievance is related to the first one, inasmuch as, respondents No.2 and 3, who did not have requisite qualification in terms of the resolution dated 23.09.2017, have been promoted as Scientific Officers Grade-II.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits while taking this Court through Annexures-L and L1 that the Pay Band and Grade Pay of the petitioner as well as Sri.Sathyamurthy K.N. were one and the same viz., Rs.9300-34800 + Grade Pay Rs.4,200/- and therefore, when both the persons have been promoted on the same day, whatever benefit given to the said -6- Sri.Sathyamurthy K.N., should also given to the petitioner in the matter of Grade Pay arises for consideration. Learned Counsel for the respondent- Institution has pointed out to the statement of objections and placing reliance on the very same documents i.e., Annexure-L and L1, submits that Sri.Sathyamurthy K.N., came from a different feeder cadre viz., Lab Assistant, while the petitioner came from the cadre of the Computer Operator. Learned Counsel further submits that for a Computer Operator, the maximum Pay Scale is Rs.6,500-10,500, whereas in the case of a Lab Assistant, the maximum Pay Scale was much higher and that is evidenced by Annexures- L and L1, wherein it is clear that Sri.Sathyamurthy K.N., was already drawing Basic Pay of Rs.17,570/- as on the date when he was promoted, but the petitioner had drawing Basic Pay of Rs.16,250/-. Having regard to these admitted facts Sri.Sathyamurthy K.N., was entitled for the higher Grade Pay and therefore he was -7- granted Rs.5,400/- and whereas the petitioner remained at Rs.4,200/-.
5. As regards the contentions of the petitioner that he is entitled for retrospective promotion in terms of the resolution of the Council dated 23.09.2017, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on a plain reading of the resolution, it is clear that prior to the Council resolution dated 13.03.1982, the minimum qualification for the post of Scientific Officer, from the Science Department was Ph.D Degree or M.Sc. Degree. The said prescription was valid upto 20.06.2008, since the Governing Council in its meeting held on 20.06.2008 resolved in suppression of the earlier resolution that with effect from 20.06.2008, there shall be no transfer of Technical Officer to Scientific Officer cadre, on their acquiring higher qualification such as ME/M.Tech/ M.Sc.(Engg)/ Ph.D. However, it was also resolved that the existing procedure for transfer of Technical Officer to the cadre -8- of Scientific Officer shall be applied in respect of a few Technical Officers, who had obtained M.Sc.(Engg)/ Ph.D Degree as on date and were entitled to transfer as Scientific Officer. It was also resolved that existing Scientific Assistants on roll will only be eligible for promotion to Technical Officer Grade-I and there shall be no recruitment/appointment to Scientific Assistants cadre and Scientific Officers cadre. However, since there were objections raised from many quarters that some of the Scientific Officers had already enrolled themselves for Post Graduation and Doctoral Degrees, such as M.Sc. and Ph.D, the Interface Committee had a discussion in that regard and opined that since a goal post set by the institute was changed in between which led to depriving of the opportunity of becoming Scientific Officers for Scientific Assistants who had registered for the M.Sc.(Engg)/Ph.D Degree, therefore the Committee recommended that those who had become Scientific Assistant and had registered for -9- M.Sc.(Engg)/Ph.D before 20.06.2008 and pursued their studies/research and got their degrees subsequently, such Scientific Officers, shall be restored the promotion avenues to the cadre of Scientific Officers as was available to them before 20.06.2008 and promotion shall be granted.
6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is two folds, as was noticed earlier that the resolution of the Council dated 23.09.2017 accepting the recommendation of the Interface Committee was to restore the benefit of promotional avenues to the Scientific Assistants and Technical Officers who were on roll as on the date of the previous resolution viz., 20.06.2008 and had enrolled themselves for Post Graduation or Doctoral Degrees, should be understood as restoration of the promotional avenues with retrospective effect. It is also pointed out that the word enrolled themselves or registered themselves for M.Sc.(Engg)/Ph.D. would mean and to be understood -10- as registration with respondent-Indian Institute of Science. This aspect of the argument shall be considered at a later stage.
7. In respect of the first limb of the arguments, this Court finds that in the resolution dated 23.09.2017, a decision was taken by the Council to restore the promotional avenue which was taken away by virtue of the earlier resolution dated 20.06.2008 till the new resolution was passed on 23.09.2017. However, the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the resolution should be read in such a manner that retrospective effect should be given to the promotion made subsequent to 23.09.2017, cannot be accepted. No material is placed by the petitioner on record to show that such a benefit was given to any other employee of the respondent- Institution. Annexures-M and M1 have been brought on record to show that such a benefit was indeed granted to some of the employees such as -11- P.V.Ramakrishnan, Sri.T.V.Prabhakar and Sri.S.Venkatesha. It is pointed out that in the case of Sri.S.Venkatesha, who had completed M.Sc.(Engg) Degree in the year 2007, date of the evaluation and promotion was granted from 22.09.2007. Whereas in the case of Sri.T.V.Prabhakar, he acquired M.Sc.(Engg) Degree in the year 2005 and his date of evaluation and promotion is granted on 08.01.2005. Apparently, in both these cases, the promotions were granted prior to 20.06.2008. Therefore, these two cases which are pointed out by the petitioner has no bearing on the contentions put forth by the petitioner.
8. What is evident from the material available on record is that from 20.06.2008, till new resolution was passed by the Council on 23.09.2017, many of the Scientific Assistants had lost the opportunity for promotion to the post of Scientific Officer Grade-II in view of the resolution and decision taken on 20.06.2008 not to allow promotions to the Scientific -12- Assistants, who acquired the Engineering Degree or Ph.D. Degrees subsequent to their recruitment to the Institution. However, since the Council agreed with the opinion of the Interface Committee that many of the Scientific Assistants had indeed enrolled themselves for Post Graduation Degree such as M.Sc.(Engg) and Ph.D Degree, they should be given the benefit of having acquired additional qualification. Therefore, by virtue of the resolution dated 23.09.2017, all such Scientific Assistants, who had enrolled themselves as on 20.06.2008 for Post Graduation Degree viz., M.Sc.(Engg) and Ph.D Degree were once again given the benefit of promotion to the post of Scientific Officer Grade-II. But, the said decision or resolution cannot be interpreted in such a manner that by virtue of the resolution passed by the Council on 23.09.2017, granting promotions to the post of Scientific Officer Grade-II, which were denied to the persons like the petitioner between 20.06.2008 -13- to 23.09.2017 that the promotions granted subsequently should be treated as retrospective promotion effective from the date of their acquiring the Post Graduation Degree. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner or the other similarly placed employees have never worked in the cadre of Scientific Officers Grade-II, prior to their promotion. Even otherwise, respondent No.1-Institution has acted fairly and has granted promotion to the persons similarly situated, by conferring the promotion after 23.09.2017 and none of such persons have been granted retrospective promotion.
9. Insofar as the second limb of the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that respondents No.2 and 3 herein had acquired Post Graduation Degree of M.Sc., not from the respondent- Indian Institute of Science, but from other Universities, and therefore they could not have been granted promotion on the ground that they should -14- have enrolled themselves for M.Sc.(Engg)/Ph.D Degree with respondent-Institution also cannot be accepted.
10. Nowhere in the resolution dated 23.09.2017, it is forthcoming that the respondent-Institution intended that such enrollment for Master Degree had to be done only with the respondent-Indian Institution of Science. A plain reading of the resolution dated 23.09.2017 makes it very clear that the benefit ought to be given to all such Scientific Assistants/Technical Officers who had already enrolled themselves for Masters Degrees or Doctoral Degrees before the previous resolution dated 20.06.2008 was passed. There is no such requirement that said Degree had to be obtained only from the respondent-Indian Institute of Science. Such an interpretation will go against the object with which the Council resolved to relax the earlier resolution dated 20.06.2008. The intention is plain and simple that if any of the Scientific Assistant -15- or Technical Officer had enrolled themselves for Masters Degree or Doctoral Degree prior to the earlier resolution dated 20.06.2008 and thereafter obtained the Degree, the benefit which was earlier available pre-20.06.2008, should also be bestowed upon such candidates.
11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.
12. In view of disposal of the main petition, all pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE JT/DL