Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Appanu P vs Vikram Sarabai Space Centre on 19 February, 2024
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH,
ERNAKULAM
Original Application Nos. 180/00916/2017, 180/01090/2017,
180/01091/2017, 180/01092/2017, 180/01093/2017,
Monday, this the 19th day of February, 2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. K.V. Eapen, Member (A)
OA No.180/00916//2017
1. Prabash N (SC No. 91605),
Accounts Officer, PRACC,
Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre,
Thumba P.O, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN - 695 022.
2. Pavanan K.G. (SC 24669),
Purchase & Stores Officer, MME-Stores,
Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, ISRO P.O,
Thiruvananthapuram, PIN - 695 022.
3. Shanifa A (SC No. 27100)
Administrative Officer (EST/PGA),
Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, ISRO P.O,
Thiruvananthapuram, PIN - 695 022.
4. Sreekala K, (SC No. 27089),
Administrative Officer (Est.),
Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre,
ISRO P.O,
Thiruvananthapuram, PIN - 695 022. - Applicants
[By Advocate : Mr. P.N. Santhosh & Mrs. K.P. Geethamani]
2
Versus
1. Union of India represented by the Secretary to
Government and the Chairman, ISRO,
Department of Space, Government of India,
Anthareeksha Bhavan, New B.E.L Road,
Bangalore - 560 094.
2. The Director, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre,
Department of Space, Government of India,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 022. - Respondents
[By Advocate : Mr. N. Anil Kumar, SPC]
OA No.180/01090//2017
Rajini P. (SC No.25856),
Purchase & Stores Officer,
CMSE Purchase,
Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre,
Vattiyoorkavu P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 013. - Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. P.N. Santhosh & Mrs. K.P. Geethamani)
Versus
1. Union of India represented by
The Secretary to Government and
The Chairman, ISRO,
Department of Space,
Government of India,
Anthareeksha Bhavan,
New B.E.L. Road, Bangalore-560 094.
3
2. The Director
Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre,
Department of Space,
Government of India,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 022. - Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. N. Anil Kumar, SPC)
OA No.180/01091//2017
1. Appanu P.,
Purchase & Stores Officer (SC No.10309),
Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre,
Thumba P.O., Thiruvananthapuram,
PIN-695 022.
2. Sheeba S.L.
Accounts Officer (SC No.36427), Avionics,
Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre,
Thumba P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, PIN-695 022.
3. Geetha S. Nair,
Administrative Officer (SC No.21993),
Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre,
Thumba P.O., Thiruvananthapuram,
PIN-695 022. - Applicants
(By Advocates: Mr. P.N. Santhosh & Mrs. K.P. Geethamani)
Versus
1. Union of India represented by
The Secretary to Government and
the Chairman, ISRO,
Department of Space,
Government of India,
Anthareeksha Bhavan,
New B.E.L. Road, Bangalore-560 094.
4
2. The Director
Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre,
Department of Space,
Government of India,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 022. - Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs. O.M. Shalina, SCGSC)
OA No.180/01092//2017
1. Somasekharan Nair
Accounts Officer (SC No.27020),
Bill Section, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre,
Thumba P.O., Thiruvananthapuram,
PIN-695 022.
2. Annamma Varghese,
Accounts Officer (SC No.20310),
Main Accounts, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre,
Thumba P.O., Thiruvananthapuram,
PIN-695 022. - Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. P.N. Santhosh & Mrs. K.P. Geethamani)
Versus
1. Union of India represented by
The Secretary to Government and
the Chairman, ISRO,
Department of Space,
Government of India, Anthareeksha Bhavan,
New B.E.L. Road, Bangalore-560 094.
2. The Director
Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre,
Department of Space, Government of India,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 022. - Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Thomas Mathew Nellimootil, SPC)
5
OA No.180/01093/2017
1. Jayachandran Nair S
Purchase & Stores Officer (SC No.22604),
Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre,
Thumba P.O., Thiruvananthapuram,
PIN-695 022.
2. Lalitha M. Nair,
Accounts Officer (SC No.13236),
CMSE Accounts, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre,
Thumba P.O., Thiruvananthapuram,
PIN-695 022. - Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. P.N. Santhosh & Mrs. K.P. Geethamani)
Versus
1. Union of India represented by
The Secretary to Government and
the Chairman, ISRO,
Department of Space,
Government of India,
Anthareeksha Bhavan,
New B.E.L. Road, Bangalore-560 094.
2. The Director
Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre,
Department of Space,
Government of India,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 022. - Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs. O.M. Shalina, SCGSC)
6
These Original Applications having been heard on 13.11.2023,
the Tribunal on 19.02.2024 delivered the following:
ORDER
Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member All the applicants herein are employed in Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC) under the 2nd Respondent. It is a unit under the Department of Space. The applicants are holding different posts in the Space Centre. They are aggrieved by rejection of their claim for stepping-up, which they had submitted to the respondent, on a premise that respective juniors to each of the applicant had started drawing salary more than the applicants.
2. The facts of the case as is discernible from the available records is as follows:-
OA No.916/2017:- The 1st Applicant was appointed as Office Clerk -A grade on 15.10.1987. He was thereafter promoted as Office Clerk-B on 22.04.1991. Thereafter, he was promoted as Accounts Assistant-A on 11.01.1995, Accounts Assistant-B on 07.08.2003 and as 7 Assistant Accounts Officer on 26.04.2004. He was finally promoted as Accounts Officer on 24.04.2007 with Grade Pay of 5400/-.
3. The 2nd Applicant was appointed as Office Clerk Grade A on 31.08.1998. He was promoted as Office Clerk B on 04.08.2000 and thereafter, as Sr. Assistant on 30.10.2003. He was promoted as Purchase and Stores Officer on 09.10.2007 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-.
4. The 3rd Applicant was appointed as Office Clerk A on 13.02.1989. He was promoted as Office Clerk B on 11.08.2003 and thereafter, as Senior Assistant on 13.10.2006. Finally, he was promoted as Administrative Officer on 26.08.2006 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-.
5. The 4th applicant was appointed as Office Clerk-A on 25.08.1988. He was promoted as Office Clerk B on 02.12.2002. Thereafter, as Sr. Assistant on 24.03.2006. Finally, he was promoted as Administrative Officer on 26.08.2008 in the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-. 8
6. OA No.1090/2017: The sole applicant was appointed as Office Clerk A on 19.10.1987. She was promoted as Office Clerk B in 1995 and thereafter Assistant 'B' in 2003. She was promoted as Project Assistant in 2005. Finally, she was promoted as Purchase Stores Officer on 11.12.2006 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-.
7. The grievance of the applicant herein is that one Subramanian who was appointed in 1989 got 1st ACP on 30.06.2001 and was thereafter promoted in 2003. He was promoted as Purchase and Stores Officer on 11.12.2006 with Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- on 30.06.2009.
8. OA No.1091/2017:- The 1st applicant was appointed as Office Clerk-A on 05.12.1991. He was promoted as Office Clerk-B in 1995, as Assistant-A in 2003 and further promoted as Assistant-B in 2006. He was finally promoted as Purchase and Stores Officer on 11.12.2006 with Grade Pay of 5400/-.
9. The 2nd applicant was appointed as Office Clerk-A on 01.01.1991. She was promoted as Office Clerk-B in 1995, as Assistant-B in 2003 and Assistant-A in 2006. She was promoted as Accounts Officer in 2007 and finally as Sr. Accounts Officer. 9 10 The 3rd applicant was appointed as typist on 01.03.1990. She was promoted as Office Clerk-B in 1993 and as Sr. Assistant in 2006. She was finally promoted as Administrative Officer on 07.10.2007.
11. All the applicants herein claim that their admitted Junior N.C. Phillipose of Liquid Propulsion System Centre, Valiamala, was appointed as Office Clerk-A on 21.4.1995, thereafter promoted as Office Clerk- B on 7.8.2003 was granted Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- on 24.01.2005 and thereafter promoted as Accounts Officer on 30.07.2008.
12. OA No.1092/2017:-The 1st applicant was appointed as Jr. Stenographer on 25.08.1987. After 12 years he was given the 1 st ACP on 25.08.1999. He was thereafter promoted as PA in pay scale Rs.5500-9000/- and later in an All India selection he was promoted as Accounts Officer with effect from 21.12.2006 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-
13. The 2nd applicant joined the service as Jr. Stenographer on 28.02.1984. She was promoted as PA and thereafter Sr. PA on 10 26.10.2004. She was promoted as Accounts Officer with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- on 22.10.2007.
14. OA No.1093/2017:- The 1st Applicant was appointed as Office Clerk -A on 22.06.1993, he was promoted as Office Clerk B in 2003 and thereafter as Senior Assistant in 2006. In an All India promotion he was promoted as Purchase and Stores Officer on 26.11.2007 in Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-.
15. The 2nd applicant was appointed as Office Clerk-A in 1990. She was promoted as Office Clerk-B in 2003 and later as Sr. Assistant in 2006. She was further promoted as Accounts Officer on 22.12.2006.
16. In all the above OAs, the respondents appeared and filed detailed reply statement in each of the OA, raising common contentions. Though the factual details vary, since common contentions are raised in all the reply statements, shorn of unnecessary details, the crux of the contentions of the respondent can be summarized as follows:-
11
ISRO is entrusted with major scientific projects of national importance. Its activities are carried through Centres of ISRO established in various parts of the country. Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre and Liquid Propulsion Centre (LPSC) were two such units situated at Trivandrum. There were 5 other units situated in various parts of the country.
17. The applicants had approached the respondents claiming that their juniors were drawing more salary than them. The representations submitted by them were rejected on the ground that the so called juniors and the applicants have neither travelled together through identical financial upgradation, either under ACP scheme or MACP scheme, nor progressed under regular promotion channels made available equally to one and all of the clerical/stenographer cadre by the Department from time to time. It was stated that initially the selection/recruitment to the various posts were done by the concerned Centres of ISRO independently and promotion in career were based on vacancies available in the particular Centre. It was further stated that the cadre controlling authorities were the respective Centre /Unit of ISRO and all these posts were filled up by the Centre/Unit itself, based 12 on the vacancies available in the respective Centre/Unit. The vacancies available in each post may vary from Centre to Centre. It was stated that separate panels were drawn for promotion from each Centre/ unit of ISRO after completion of prescribed residency period. The Assistant-A and Assistant-B in respective Division or stenographers were eligible to compete for further career progression. Once an employee is appointed under the concerned Rules, he was liable to be posted at any Centres of ISRO, which were located across the nation. According to the respondents, the pay of employee, who could not earn more promotion due to non-availability of vacancy in a particular Centre/Division, though he was more meritorious and had earned financial upgradation to the next higher Grade Pay cannot be compared with another person who got promotion at regular intervals, as vacancies were available at the Centre in those times. On these premise, they sought for dismissal of OA's.
18. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants in all the cases and the learned SCGSC. Perused the records.
13
19. The officer's cadre in ISRO is controlled by ISRO Head Quarters. The induction of the applicants were to Group-B posts and vacancies occurring in Centres were filled up by ISRO Head Quarters from the common panel drawn in each area. The candidates from different feeder posts, who meet the prescribed norms were eligible to compete for the promotion to the officer cadre. The vacancies in officer cadre in respective Divisions were filled up by ISRO Head Quarters, by conducting centralized procedure common for all ISRO Centre/Units. The employees of ISRO, progressed their career through well defined career progression schemes prevailing in each Department and were later promoted to Group A/Gazetted posts.
20. The applicants and the persons with whom each of the applicants seeks stepping up, were inducted from separate selection panels drawn by the respective units and by the Department by following the prescribed percentage of reservation applicable to different State. Their career progression in the respective cadre were based on vacancies available in the respective units. The vacancies available in each unit may differ from year to year and the employees chance in each unit for promotion to the next higher posts may be different. According to the 14 respondents, the applicants and the persons with whom they seek parity/stepping up were selected/promoted to the respective cadre based on promotional avenues open to such cadre by fixing different residency period for different posts in both the cadres. They were promoted to such posts through well defined channel and procedure applicable to all staff working in respective units of ISRO. One cannot claim their meritorious advancement in respective Centre, with those who are working in another independent unit, as the vacancies available in each unit are different and they are also promoted to higher posts on promotion panel drawn separately in respective cadres. Hence such promotions/selection of each of the applicant with so called juniors is not comparable.
21. According to the respondents, financial upgradation under the ACP/MACP scheme are purely personal to the employee concerned and has no relevance to their respective seniority position. No stepping up of pay in the Pay Band would be admissible on the junior getting more pay than the senior on account of fixation of pay under the MACP/ACP schemes.
15
22. As per the settled legal proposition, stepping up of pay can be considered only when both the junior and senior are promoted from identical posts, through a common channel of promotion. The applicants and respective persons with whom each of them seek stepping up were promoted to the respective posts, while they were holding different cadres. It was further stated that their career progression show that the applicants and persons with whom they seek stepping up have neither travelled together through identical financial upgradation, either under the ACP scheme or MACP scheme nor progressed under regular promotional channels.
23. The learned SCGSC invited our attention to the Office Memorandum dated 04.11.1993 regarding stepping up of pay issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India. The OM states that the following are the conditions when stepping up are generally considered:-
a) both the junior and senior officer should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre;16
b) The scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which the junior and senior officer are entitled to draw pay should be identical
c) The anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of FR 22-C. For example, if even in the lower post the junior officer draws from time to time a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance increments or on any other account the above provisions will not be invoked to step up the pay of senior officer.
24. Records show that the Department had undertaken a cadre review of Administrative Staff in OS/ISRO and its constituent Centres in the year 2002. Consequent on the cadre review, the Department decided to phase out the Office of Clerk-A in the pay scale of Rs.3050- 4590 in the 5th CPC scale, and to upgrade the induction level clerical grade to Office Clerk-B in the pay of Rs.4000-6000 in the 5 th CPC scale, duly considering the decision to phase out the initial induction level at Office Clerk-A and to keep it as Office Clerk-B in the cadre review in 2003 and also in consonance with the guidelines/ instructions on ACP/MACP schemes. The Department of Space subsequently clarified by OM No.12013/3/2009 dated 09.11.2011 that :-
17
i. Promotion from the post of Office Clerk-A to Office Clerk-B may be ignored for the purpose of grant of financial upgradation under ACP/MACP scheme in respect of those employees who were inducted as Office Clerk-A through open recruitment process.
ii. The date of acquiring the Grade of Office Clerk-B will be treated as date of direct recruitment for the limited purpose of grant of financial upgradation under ACP/MACP schemes.
iii. In respect of those Office Clerk-A's who were/are promoted from erstwhile Group D either through 15% quota or through internal notification processes, if any, such promotions from Office Clerk-A to Office Clerk-B shall continue to be treated as promotion for the purpose of grant of financial upgradation under ACP/MACP scheme.
Thereafter, the Department of Space had reconsidered the above OM and decided to delete para 2 of the above OM vide OM dated 03.04.2012.
25. In OA Nos.916/2017, 1091/2017, 1092/2017 and 1093, all the applicants claim stepping up to that of K.A. Nagaraj posted at ISRO, Bangalore. The records show that he was appointed as Office Clerk-A on 20.07.1989. He was promoted as Office Clerk Grade 'B' on 14.08.2003. He was granted 1st ACP with effect from 20.07.2001. It was set off by promotion as Administrative Officer in Grade Pay 18 5400/-. It is pertinent to note that the applicants in OA No.916/2017 got their first promotion as Assistant Grade 'A' in GP 4200, 2 nd promotion as Officer GP 5400/- in PB-3 and hence they are not entitled for the next GP of 6600/- . On the other hand, the applicants in OA No.1090/2017 sought stepping up referring to the examples of one Subramanya and N.C. Philopose. Subramanya was employed in ISRO Bangalore. He was appointed in 1989 and got the 1 st ACP with effect from 30.06.2001. He was promoted in 2003. Subramanya was promoted to the post of Purchase and Stores Officer when he was holing the post of Assistant in the scale of Rs.5200-20200/- with GP of 2400/- in the 6th CPC. Thereafter, he got GP of Rs. 6600/- on 30.09.2009.
26. N.C. Philopose was appointed in 1995 as Office Clerk Grade 'A' at LPSC, at Valiamala. Thereafter, he was promoted as Office Clerk 'B'. he was given the 2nd MACP in GP 6600/- with effect from 24.01.2015. He was promoted as Purchase and Stores Officer with effect from 30.07.2008.
19
27. These facts clearly show that the applicants and the persons to whose salary each of them is seeking stepping up, did not come through the same channel as evident from their career progression. The entire sequence of events and the career progression of the applicants and the persons with whom they are seeking stepping up show that all were not promoted from identical posts and therefore stepping up cannot apply.
28. The learned counsel for the applicants placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others versus C.R. Madhava Murthy and Another { (2022) 6 SCC 183}. In that stepping up was granted based on the ACP benefits after reference to FR 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the essential conditions requisite for granting stepping up as follows:-
(a) Both the junior and senior officers should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre;
(b) The scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical;
(c) The anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of FR-22-C. For example, if even in the lower post the junior officer draws from time to time a higher rate of pay then the senior by virtue of grant 20 of advance increments, the above provisions will not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer.
29. Even though the learned counsel for the applicant relied on C.R. Madhava Murthy's case (supra), it is clearly distinguishable on facts. It is clear from the facts that in the case of persons claiming stepping up in that case were appointed as Inspectors by promotion, whereas one C.K. Satish and another persons were appointed as Inspectors by direct recruitment, subsequent to the promotion of former as Inspectors. Applying the principle of stepping-up, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was clear case of granting stepping-up. The facts also show that in C.R. Madhava Murthy's case (supra), parties were promoted from the same cadre, which is not the same in the said case.
30. On the other hand, Learned SCGSC tried to distinguish C.R. Madhava Murthy's case (supra) on other facts also. It was contended that C.R. Madhava Murthy's case did not refer to MACP scheme. In Union of India and others versus M.V. Mohanan Nair [(2020) 5 SCC 421] - the claim based on MACP scheme was proposed to be considered in separate proceedings. It was also contended that C.R. 21 Madhava Murthy's case cannot apply since it dealt with ACP scheme only. An identical contention raised was rejected by Division Bench of Kerala High Court in OP(CAT) No.192 of 2016 by holding that the relevant provisions did not lead to any distinction between both the schemes. Accordingly, the contention that C.R. Madhava Murthy's case applies only in the case of ACP and cannot apply to MACP does not hold good. However, on other facts as mentioned earlier, C.R. Madhava Murthy's case is clearly distinguishable from the facts of these cases.
31. As indicated above, the career progression of all the applicant and the corresponding persons, with whom they are seeking stepping up show that both did not get promotion either from the same posts or did not progress through the same channel of career progression. Having considered the entire facts in the above cases, the grounds for granting stepping up are not seen in the cases at hand. All the applicants and the respective persons, with whom they seek stepping- up flowed through different channels. The promotion of employees in each unit up to the level of officers were dependent on the number of vacancies in each level, which differed from unit to unit. The fact that 22 career progression in each unit depending on the available vacancy varied from unit to unit. Hence the case of the persons with whom the applicants seeks stepping-up are incomparable.
32. Having held so, we find no reason to grant reliefs as prayed for. The OAs fail and are dismissed. No costs.
(K.V. EAPEN) (JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
va
23
Original Application No. 180/00916/2017 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A-1- A true copy of the Office Memorandum dated 03.04.2012 issued by the Department of Space. Annexure A-2- A true copy of the representation dated 10.06.2016 submitted by the first applicant through proper channel before the first respondent.
Annexure A-3- A true copy of representation dated 13.06.2016 submitted by the second applicant through proper channel before the first respondent.
Annexure A-4- A true copy of representation dated 13.06.2016 submitted by the third applicant through proper channel before the first respondent.
Annexure A-5- A true copy of representation dated 13.06.2016 submitted by the fourth applicant through proper channel before the first respondent.
Annexure A-6- A true copy of the order dated 23.12.2016 in O.A No. 1086/2016 of this Tribunal.
Annexure A-7- Office Memorandum No. A.24012/4/2017-I dated 01.03.2017 issued from the Office of the first respondent to the extent it pertains to the applicants.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1(a)- A copy of the OM No. 35034/1/97-Estt.(D) dated 09.08.1999 issued by DoPT.
Annexure R1(b)- A copy of the OM No. 35034/3/2008-Estt.(D) dated 19.05.2009 issued by DoPT.
24Annexure R1(c)- A copy of the Department of Space OM No. A. 12013/3/2009 dated 09.11.2011.
Annexure R1(d)- A copy of the Department of Space OM No. A. 12013/3/2009-Sec.1 dated 03.04.2012.
Annexure R1(e)- True copy of common order dated 15.02.2018 in O.A No. 326/2017 by CAT, Bangalore Bench.
Annexure R1(f)- True copy of ID Note No. 1321079/JS(E)/2018 dated 07.12.2018.
Annexure R1(g)- True copy of OM dated 01.04.2019.
Original Application No. 180/01090/2017 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A 1 - A true copy of the Office Memorandum dated 03.04.2012 issued by the Department of Space. Annexure A 2 - A true copy of the representation dated 16.06.2016 submitted by the applicant through proper channel before the first respondent.
Annexure A 3 - A true copy of order dated 23.12.2016 in OA No.1089/2016 of this Tribunal Annexure A 4 - Office Memorandum No.A-24012/4/2017-I dated 01.03.2017 issued from the Office of the first respondent to the extent it pertains to the applicant. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1(a)- True copy of OM No.35034/1/97-Estt(D) dated 09.08.1999 25 Annexure R1(b)- True copy of OM No.35034/3/2008-Estt(D) dated 19.05.2009 Annexure R1(c)- True copy of OM No.A12013/3/2009 dated 09.11.2011 Annexure R1(d)- True copy of common order dated 15.02.2018 in OA No.326/2017 by CAT, Bangalore Bench Annexure R1(e)- True copy of ID Note No.1321079/JS(E)/2018 dated 07.12.2018 Annexure R1(f)- True copy of OM dated 01.04.2019 *** Original Application No. 180/01091/2017 APPLICANTS' ANNEXURES Annexure A 1 - A true copy of the Office Memorandum dated 03.04.2012 issued by the Department of Space. Annexure A 2 - A true copy of the representation dated 21.06.2016 submitted by the first applicant through proper channel before the first respondent.
Annexure A 3 - A true copy of the representation dated 14.06.2016 submitted by the 2nd applicant through proper channel before the first respondent.
Annexure A 4 - A true copy of the representation dated 16.06.2016 submitted by the 3rd applicant through proper channel before the first respondent.
Annexure A5 - A true copy of order dated 23.12.2016 in OA No.1081/2016 of this Tribunal Annexure A 6 - A true copy of the Office Memorandum No.A-
24012/4/2017-I dated 01.03.2017 issued from the Office of the first respondent RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1(a)- True copy of OM No.35034/1/97-Estt(D) dated 09.08.1999 26 Annexure R1(b)- True copy of OM No.35034/3/2008-Estt(D) dated 19.05.2009 Annexure R1(c)- True copy of OM No.A12013/3/2009 dated 09.11.2011 Annexure R1(d)- True copy of order dated 15.02.2018 in OA No.326/2017 Annexure R1(e)- True copy of ID Note No.1321079/JS(E)/2018 dated 07.12.2018 Annexure R1(f)- True copy of OM No.A12012/1/2018-1 dated 01.04.2019 *** Original Application No. 180/01092/2017 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A 1 - A true copy of the Office Memorandum dated 03.04.2012 issued by the Department of Space. Annexure A 2 - A true copy of the representation dated 17.06.2016 submitted by the first applicant through proper channel before the first respondent.
Annexure A 3- A true copy of the representation dated 10.08.2016 submitted by the 2nd applicant through proper channel before the first respondent.
Annexure A 4 - A true copy of order dated 23.12.2016 in OA No.1087/2016 of this Tribunal Annexure A 5 - A true copy of the Office Memorandum No.A-
24012/4/2017-I dated 01.03.2017 issued from the Office of the first respondent RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1(a)- True copy of OM No.35034/1/97-Estt(D) dated 09.08.1999 Annexure R1(b)- True copy of OM No.35034/3/2008-Estt(D) dated 19.05.2009 27 Annexure R1(c)- True copy of OM No.A12013/3/2009 dated 09.11.2011 Annexure R1(d)- True copy of Order dated 15.02.2018 in OA No.326/2017 Annexure R1(e)- True copy of ID Note No.1321079/JS(E)/2018 dated 07.12.2018 Annexure R1(f)-True copy of OM No.A12012/1/2018-1 dated 01.04.2019 **** Original Application No. 180/01093/2017 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A 1 - A true copy of the Office Memorandum dated 03.04.2012 issued by the Department of Space. Annexure A 2 - A true copy of the representation dated 17.06.2016 submitted by the first applicant through proper channel before the first respondent.
Annexure A 3- A true copy of the representation dated 16.06.2016 submitted by the 2nd applicant through proper channel before the first respondent.
Annexure A 4 - A true copy of order dated 23.12.2016 in OA No.1081/2016 of this Tribunal Annexure A 5 - A true copy of the Office Memorandum No.A-
24012/4/2017-I dated 01.03.2017 issued from the Office of the first respondent RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1- True copy of OM No.35034/1/97-Estt(D) dated 09.08.1999 issued by DoPT Annexure R2- True copy of OM No.35034/3/2008-Estt(D) dated 19.05.2009 issued by DoPT Annexure R3 - True copy of the Department of Space OM No.A12013/3/2009 dated 09.11.2011 28 AnnexureR4 -True copy of the Common Order dated 15.02.2018 in OA No.347/2017 issued by the Hon'ble CAT, Bangalore Bench Annexure R5 - True copy of ID Note No.1321079/JS(E)/2018 dated 07.12.2018 of the DoPT Annexure R6 - True copy of the Department of Space Office Memorandum No.12012/1/2018-1 dated 01.04.2019 ****