Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Nv Nageswara Rao vs M/O Agriculture on 6 December, 2023
OA No.20/1445/2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH :: AT HYDERABAD
OA/020/01445/2015
Date of CAV: 12.10.2023
Date of Pronouncement: 06.12.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Ms. Shalini Misra, Administrative Member
1. N.V. Nageswara Rao, S/o. N.V. Ratnam,
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Sr. Technician,
O/o. The Director (Sr) FM TTI,
Ministry of Agriculture & Cooperation,
Tractor Nagar, Garladinne, Dist: Ananthapur.
2. Bonam Venkata Ramana, S/o. B. Pullaiah,
Aged about 38 years, Occ: Sr. Technician,
O/o. The Director (Sr) FM TTI,
Ministry of Agriculture & Cooperation,
Tractor Nagar, Garladinne, Dist: Ananthapur.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. K. Phani Raju)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Rep. by Secretary,
Ministry of Agriculture,
Dept. of Agriculture & Cooperation,
Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Director (SR),
Farm Machinery Training & Testing Institute,
Tractor Nagar, P.O. Garladinee, Dist: Ananthapur - 515731.
....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. V. Vinod Kumar, Sr. PC for CG)
---
Page 1 of 8
OA No.20/1445/2015
ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr.Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member) The OA is filed by the applicants aggrieved by the action of the respondents in issuing the Officer Order dt. 03.09.2015, whereby it was decided to fill up the vacancies on promotion/ direct recruitment for the post of Technical Assistant (Pre-revised Training Assistant) pending adjudication of issues before the Hon'ble Tribunal such as re-designating the post of Technician by merging with the Electrical Grade I post vide File No. 17.09.2023 and further issuing the New Recruitment Rules by re- designating the post of Technician vide GSR 902(E) dated 16.12.2014 by merging with unconnected cadres and further issuing Combining Seniority List vide 22.06.2015 by clubbing several Group 'C' cadres in All India Level, which adversely affecting the service conditions/ promotion avenues of the applicant.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the 1st applicant joined the respondents' organization as Mate-I in 1994; he was selected to the post of Tractor Driver in 1997 and promoted to the post of Technician (Re- designated as Sr. Technician) in 2007 with grade pay of Rs.2400. The 2nd applicant joined the respondents' organization as Technician (Re- designated as Sr. Technician) in 2007. The next avenue of promotion is to the post of Technical Assistant and they are fully eligible for the said post.
3. According to the applicants, under the pre-revised Recruitment Rules, the post of Technician with pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 (Revised GP Rs.2400/- PB-I) was the feeder cadre to the post of Technical Assistant Page 2 of 8 OA No.20/1445/2015 (previously Training Assistant) which carries the pay scale of Rs.4000- 7000 (Revised to GP Rs.2800/- PB-I) and the mode of selection being 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion, with required residency period of five years.
4. While so, Respondents undertook cadre restructuring on 17.9.2013 by re-designating the post of Training Assistant (for short TA) with grade pay of Rs.2800 as Technical Assistant and the feeder post of Technician (Grade Pay of Rs.2400/-) was clubbed with Electrician Grade-I post by re- designating it as Senior Technician. Thereafter, Recruitment Rules were issued on 18.12.2014 (for short RR-2014) and the common seniority list of Electrician & Technician Grade-I was issued on 1.12.2014.
5. The contentions of the applicants are that without notifying the RR- 2014, the posts were re-designated and the common seniority list involving unrelated cadres was issued. It is the further contention of the applicants that the cadres of Technician and Electrician Gr.I are different with divergent nature of work, but with same grade pay of Rs.2400. The promotional channels are also separate and hence clubbing of these two posts is irregular. Placing the Electricians as seniors over the Technicians in the common seniority list issued on 1.12.2014 is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the constitution. Due to merger, the seniority of the applicants has been changed to their detriment by placing Electrical person as senior to the Technicians. Ventilating their grievances, representations were submitted and as there was no response, OA No. 609/2015 was filed which is pending adjudication, as stated in the present OA.
Page 3 of 8
OA No.20/1445/2015
6. Respondents contested the OA by filing their reply statement wherein it is stated that Mechanization and Technology Division of Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare undertook the process of amalgamation of various posts/ cadres, as per DOPT advise dated 10.02.2011 and accordingly, merger of technical and non-technical cadres, carrying same scale of pay and similar duties, was done to facilitate consolidation of small and isolated cadres as well as reduce multiple designations along with enhancement of promotional opportunities. The process of restructuring of the entire technical and non-technical cadre of Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute (FMTTIs), Budni (MP), Hisar (Haryana), Anantapur (AP) and Biswanath Chariali (Assam) was initiated in 2012, which aimed at removing the ambiguity in the names of posts with same duties, but different names; to widen the scope of promotion; to enhance the promotional avenues to the incumbents working in the isolated posts of FMTTIs. Thus, the technical and non-technical cadres in the above Institutes were restructured by clubbing the posts with identical pay scales and duties. Accordingly, the Orders were issued on 07.10.2014. The representations received on preparation of common seniority list from the concerned officials were disposed of. Consequently, combined seniority list of Group C Technical posts was issued vide letter dt. 18.06.2015. It is stated that the 1st applicant herein filed similar OA being OA No. 609/2015 and the same is pending.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the pleadings on record carefully.
Page 4 of 8
OA No.20/1445/2015
8. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that similar case i.e. OA No. 609/2015, filed by the 1 st applicant herein was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dt. 10.11.2021 and this OA is squarely covered by the said Order and therefore, this OA is liable to be dismissed.
9. We have carefully gone through the order of this Tribunal in OA 609/2015 and the relevant observations made therein are extracted as under:
"7. I. The dispute is in regard to restructuring of cadres in the respondents' organization. The applicant is working as Technician in the grade pay of Rs.2400 and is due to be promoted as Technical Assistant (Training Assistant in the pre-revised cadre) with grade pay of Rs.2800. However, respondents have undertaken cadre restructuring by merging of Electrician Grade-I and Technician grade to create Sr. Technician Post with same grade pay of Rs.2400 and issued a common seniority list, thereby the seniority of the applicant has been adversely affected. Respondents, per contra, state that the small and isolated cadres were merged to increase the promotional opportunities, reduce multiple designations, and enhance work exposure etc. II. As is seen from the facts, respondents have undertaken restructuring of the cadres in Organizational interests in order to club small and isolated cadres to improve promotional opportunities and enhance work efficiency. The Tribunal has very little scope to interfere in such matters since restructuring is a policy matter. Besides, even after the merger of the cadres, the respondents have made it clear that the employees would be assigned the work in which they have expertise. We agree with the contention and therefore, merger of cadres with same grade pay, but with different skill sets can be no ground to take objection to. It requires no reiteration that any organization would direct the employee to work in the domain in which he has skill and not otherwise as for example, asking an Electrician to work as an Technician and vice versa, as claimed by the applicant.
III. Restructuring is a macro level exercise wherein every one cannot be expected to gain. There could be some difficulties experienced in respect of a microscopic minority as in the case of the applicant whose seniority has slided due to merger of cadres. However, organizational interests gain priority over individual interests and restructuring is a policy initiative of the Management wherein the Tribunal, as per settled law, has very little room to interfere unless it is malafide. We find no malafide in framing of the Policy in question by the respondents. A similar issue was adjudicated by the Tribunal in OA 356/2015 and dismissed on 06.04.2021 by observing as under:
"7 (i). The dispute is about the restructuring of both Technical and non- Technical cadres in the Respondents organization. The Page 5 of 8 OA No.20/1445/2015 Respondents have undertaken cadre restructuring based on DoPT Memo dated 10.02.2011, since cadre restructuring will widen the scope of promotions in the Organization. It is possible that a large number of employees may get the benefit and some may have difficulty in getting the promotions as per their expectations. Nevertheless the organization will benefit in the process, since it will usher in system efficiency and enhance promotional opportunities to many. This aspect is not only to be understood by the Organization's management but also by the employees in the Respondent's organization as well.
(ii) Along with the cadre restructuring, Respondents revised the Recruitment Rules after consulting UPSC / DoPT and have been approved by the Ministry. Revised Recruitment Rules specify higher qualification for the post of Technical Assistant which is the next higher post to Senior Technician. The latest Recruitment Rules call for an Engineering Degree or a Diploma in Engineering. Earlier Recruitment Rules have not specified this qualification. The applicant is aggrieved that these changed education qualification would affect his promotional opportunities. In the rejoinder he states that it will be difficult to acquire the higher educational qualifications and therefore his career would be effected adversely. The Respondents submit that, to cope up with the advanced procedures and to adopt new technology, there has to be an increase in the educational qualifications so that the employees would be better equipped to discharge the duties that they are called upon to discharge. We agree and hence the need for Higher Educational Qualifications cannot be questioned.
iii. Respondents have also made it clear that the merger of non-Technical cadres have also been undertaken along with Technical posts with details in the reply statement. The applicant has submitted that different trades with dissimilar functionalities like Carpenter, Electrician and Mechanic have been grouped together, which is improper. He has cited the case of Railways where JE (Civil), JE (Mechanical) and JE (Electrical) groups were separately formed. However the applicant should be aware that, the Ministry of Defence, has clubbed dissimilar trades like Carpenter, Electrician, etc to augment promotional opportunities. In a small cadre the opportunities to rise in the career is limited and therefore merger of small cadres is done in the interest of the employees. Xxxxx xxxxxx iv. In fact the challenge mounted by the applicant in regard to the cadre restructuring is a policy matter wherein which the Tribunal has a narrow scope to intervene as observed by the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court in Prakash Chandra vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 10 October, 2019 in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 467 of 2019 by relying on a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as under :
"9. Even otherwise, what the petitioner seeks is for a mandamus to be issued to the State Government to amend the 2007 Rules. While the High Court, undoubtedly, has the power to strike down Rules, if they fall foul of Part-III of the Constitution of India, that would not justify the High Court taking upon itself the task of amending Rule 7 of the 2007 Rules or to issue a mandamus to the State Government to do so. Legislative power is exercised by the legislature directly or, subject to certain conditions, may be exercised by some other authority on such a power being delegated to them. But exercise of that power, whether by the legislature or by its delegate, is an exercise of a legislative power. The fact that the power was delegated to the executive does not convert that power into an executive or administrative power. No court can issue a mandate to a legislature to enact a particular law. Similarly no court can direct a subordinate legislative body to enact or not to enact a law which it may be Page 6 of 8 OA No.20/1445/2015 competent to enact. (Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India: AIR 1990 SC 334; State of J&K v. A.R. Zakki & others: AIR 1992 SCC 1546; State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Gopalakrishna Murthi and Ors: AIR 1976 SC 123; Mangalam Organics Ltd. vs. Union of India: (2017) 7 SCC 221 and Narinder Chand Hem Raj v. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory Himachal Pradesh: AIR 1971 SC 2399; Dhananjay Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & others: Full Bench judgment in Writ Petition (S/B) No.45 of 2014 dated 21.05.2019).
10. While it has the power to strike down a law on the ground of want of authority, this Court would not sit in appeal over the policy of the State Legislature in enacting a law. [Rusom Cavasiee Cooper v. Union of India:
(1970) 1 SCC 248). Just as it cannot direct a legislature to enact a particular law, (Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India: AIR 1990 SC 334), the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct the Executive to exercise power by way of subordinate Legislation, pursuant to the power delegated by the Legislature to enact a law, in a particular manner. (Indian Soaps and Toiletries Makers Association vs. Ozair Husain and Ors: (2013) 3 SCC 641; Dhananjay Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & others: Full Bench judgment in Writ Petition (S/B) No.45 of 2014 dated 21.05.2019).
11. It is not within the domain of the Court to legislate. The Courts interpret the law, and have the jurisdiction to declare the law unconstitutional. But, the courts are not to plunge into policy making by adding something to the policy by issuing a writ of mandamus. (Census Commissioner and Ors. v. R. Krishnamurthy: (2015) 2 SCC 796 and Mangalam Organics Ltd. vs. Union of India: (2017) 7 SCC 221). A writ of Mandamus cannot be issued to the Legislature to enact a particular law, or to the Rule making authority to make rules in a particular manner or even to the Government to frame a policy. (Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India: AIR 1990 SC 334; State of J&K v. A.R. Zakki & others: AIR 1992 SCC 1546; State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Gopalakrishna Murthi and Ors: AIR 1976 SC 123; Mangalam Organics Ltd. vs. Union of India: (2017) 7 SCC 221 and Narinder Chand Hem Raj v. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory Himachal Pradesh: AIR 1971 SC 2399; Dhananjay Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & others: Full Bench judgment in Writ Petition (S/B) No.45 of 2014 dated 21.05.2019). Since increase in the upper age limit from 35 to 42 years can only be made by an amendment to the 2007 Rules, which power is legislative in character, the relief which the petitioner seeks, for a mandamus to enhance the upper age limit from 35 to 42 years, cannot be granted."
The cadre restructure is one such policy matter of the respondents, where in the Tribunal cannot issue directions as sought for by the applicant. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any merit in the OA. Hence the Original Application is dismissed with no order as to costs."
The present OA is fully covered by the above decision. IV. Applicant has contended that there are many flaws in the RR-2014 without stating as to what they are and hence, it can be no ground to look into. Further, the claim of the applicant that his promotion would be adversely affected does not persuade us since due to cadre restructuring, there could be many who could have benefitted. Organizational policies are directed towards the betterment of the organization, which includes the well-being of a large majority of the Organizational staff. In a merged cadre, seniors in the cadre would rank higher to the applicant and therefore, his seniority slipping to a lower number in the seniority list cited is an offshoot of the Page 7 of 8 OA No.20/1445/2015 restructuring, which cannot be questioned. Restructuring is not meant only for the applicant but to the entire cadre and therefore, viewing the cadre restructuring from an individual perspective is unfair. Other contentions raised have also been gone into and finding them to be irrelevant no comments have been made.
V. Hence, in view of the aforesaid, there being no room to intervene on behalf of the applicant on grounds of merit, we dismiss the OA with no order as to costs."
10. As seen from the above, the previous OA filed by the 1st applicant herein i.e. OA 609/2015 was dismissed on 10.11.2021, on the similar lines as that of the OA No. 356/2015. As observed by this Tribunal, the process of cadre restructuring is a policy matter of the Government and the scope of this Tribunal is limited in such matters.
11. Having considered the pleadings on record, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides, this Tribunal is of the view that this OA is squarely covered by the order of this Tribunal OA No. 609/2015.
12. Thus, this OA is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(SHALINI MISRA) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
evr
Page 8 of 8