Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
C K Suresh vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 5 December, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00577/2014
Tuesday, this the 5th day of December, 2017
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr.U.Sarathchandran, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr.E.K.Bharat Bhushan, Administrative Member
C.K. Suresh,
T-3, Machine Operator,
Fish Processing Unit, C.I.F.T.,
Cochin - 682 029. ... Applicant
(By Advocate - Mr. Poly Mathai)
Versus
1. Indian Council for Agriculture Research
represented by its Secretary,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Director,
Central Institute for Fisheries Technology,
Kochi - 29. ... Respondents
(By Advocate - Mr. P. Santhosh Kumar)
This Original Application having been heard on 21.11.2017, the Tribunal on
5.12.2017 delivered the following:
ORDER
Per HON'BLE MR. U. SARATHCHANDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Applicant is currently working as T3 Machine Operator in the Processing Division of the Central Institute of Fisheries Technology (CIFT, for short), Kochi under respondent no.2. The CIFT is under the control of respondent no.1. The grievance of the applicant is that although he ought to have been posted in the Functional Group of Workshop Staff by vindication of his qualifications and training, for the convenience of his superior officers, he was wrongly placed in the Functional Group II of Laboratory Technician. He states that he is an ITI trade certificate holder in the trade of Mechanic General Electronic and could have got two promotions from T-1 to T-6 had he been posted in the Functional Group of 'workshop staff' rather than continuing under the Functional Group of 'Laboratory Technician' where further promotion requires higher qualifications and hence his promotional prospects have become bleak and unpropitious.
2. According to the applicant he had 8 years of experience in Kerala State Electronic Development Corporation (KELTRON) before joining the respondent CIFT on 11.4.1997. He was promoted as T-2 on 11.4.2002. Thereafter, he was not given any promotion. He was informed that his post was classified under the functional group of Lab Technician. While at CIFT he was entrusted with the maintenance and running of high pressure and high voltage machinery ,exposing him to high risk. His Controlling Officer had sent him for training in U.K when a new machine was purchased.
3 Applicant contends that the work he was performing in the institute was in the nature of the work done by the Functional Group of Workshop Staff although he was posted in the Laboratory Technician group. This was an error occurred to respondent no.2 who is the competent authority to regulate the post in a particular functional group. Relying on Annexures A-1 and A-2 recommendatory letters issued from the office of respondent no.2 (by the Senior Administrative Officer), he points out that his requests for change in category was forwarded to respondent no.1 did not find a favorable answer from them. Annexure A-5 - yet another request for re-categorization - was also not considered by the respondent no.1 who sent Annexure A-6 reply stating that ''SMD has no role in the matter''. Annexure A7 request sent lastly also was not adverted to by the respondents.
4. Applicant seeks relief as under:
''(i) Direct the respondents to consider Annexure A-7 and pass orders thereon within the time limit.
(ii) To declare that the applicant's initial appointment in functional group of Lab Technician was wrong and he ought to have been appointed in the functional group of workshop staff and engineering staff.
(iii) To permit the applicant for re-option to the old TSR.
(iv) Issue any other order or direction as deemed just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.''
5. In the reply statement filed by respondent no.2 on behalf of both the respondents it is stated that as per Rule 21 of the Bye-Laws of respondent no.1, the posts in the Council are categorized as:
(a)Scientific
(b)Technical
(c)Administrative
(d)Auxiliary &
(e)Supporting
6. Respondents state that the Scientists working in the Institutes are supported in their work by a large number of technical staff members as well as by administrative, Auxiliary and other supporting staff. Members of the Technical Services provide the kind of support than can enhance the per capita output of Research Scientists by helping in organizing field and laboratory facilities in an efficient manner. As per the Technical Services Rules of ICAR (TSR for short), as amended in the year 2000 (Annexure R-1) the Technical Staff members were to be asked to exercise an option specifically to opt for the existing Technical Services Rules and the option once exercised shall be irrevocable and final. As per the modified TSR, the technical staffs are grouped into three different categories viz; Category I ( for posts in T-1 and T-2 grades), Category II (for posts in T3, T4 and T-5 grades) and Category III (for posts in T-6, T-7/8 and T-9 grades). All technical posts with different designations will be known by their grade numbers. However, for the purpose of identification of duties performed by different functionaries, the grades of the persons will be appropriately distinguished to reflect the duties attached to the posts. According to the provisions of TSR, the technical personnel are fitted into various Functional Groups based on the qualifications/proficiency etc. in the trade possessed by them having due regard to the necessity for maintaining a high standard of efficiency. They are:
''
1.Group I - Field/Farm Technicians
2.Group II - Laboratory Technicians
3.Group III - Workshop including Engineering Workshop staff
4.Group IV - Library/Information/Documentation Staff
5.Group V - Photography Staff
6.Group VI - Artist
7.Group VII - Press & Editorial Staff
8.Group VIII- Medical and Paramedical Staff
9.Group IX - House Keeping Staff (See Annexure R-2) ''
7. Under the Functional Group II - Lab Technician, the post of Machine Operator is listed at Serial No.10 (See Annexure R-2). Therefore, according to respondents, it can be seen that the personnel deployed under this Group are required to work in the laboratories. The respondents contend that the nature of duties in respect of the posts under Functional Group II & Functional Group - III are different from one another and not equal and hence not comparable. Respondents further state that as the applicant's services were required for performing duties in the Laboratory he was placed under the functional Group -II Laboratory Technician against the post listed at serial no.10 thereto.
8. Respondents point out that it is almost 12 years after the applicant joined the institute and he is raising a grievance about his functional group after a long lapse of time. It is also stated that the applicant had been given promotion on the basis of his option exercised under the modified TSR to the grade of T-3 under Category II of the TSR, after completion of 10 years' service in T-2. He will be eligible to be considered for merit promotion to T-4 grade after completion of 5 years' service in T-3 grade, i.e. from 11.4.2017, also for further promotion to the next higher grade of Technical Officer T-5 with effect from 11.4.2022 and he will attain the age of superannuation only on 30.4.2029. Respondents refute the argument of the applicant that it is not true that the promotional avenues of the applicant are adversely affected for want of change of functional designation.
9. The reply statement filed by the respondents on 10 th October 2014 evoked a rejoinder meticulously challenging and disputing the pleadings in the reply statement almost verbatim. To the rejoinder an additional reply statement by the respondent which was again met by the applicant with an additional rejoinder. It was followed by a war of pleadings by both sides filing second additional reply, second additional rejoinder and 3 rd additional reply statement. Both sides have produced additional documents in support of their pleadings as well. However, as the main pleadings adequately focus on the gravamen of the controversy, we feel that there is no need to expatiate on those rival additional contentions which have indeed gone to acrimonious extent.
10. When the Original Application come up for final hearing, the applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No.1035/17 seeking amendment of the relief portion. The additional relief he sought is:
'' (3a) To declare that the 2nd respondent is the competent person to take a decision in the matter of designating of a post in an appropriate functional group as is evident from Annexure A-6 communication.
(3b) To direct the 2nd respondent to take a decision in above matter within a time frame and grant the applicant all benefits thereunder.
(3c) To declare that the applicant is continuing in old TSR as he has not given any option to be included in new TSR in view of the inclusion of his post in the wrong functional group. ''
11. We decided to hear both sides on the additional relief sought. In the interest of justice we allow the M.A for amendment reckoning the above quoted additional reliefs. We have heard Shri.Poly Mathai, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.P.Santhosh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents in extentso.
12. The epicenter of the controversy is the question whether the applicant ought to have been included in the Functional Group of Workshop Staff or whether he should continue under the Functional Group of Laboratory Technicians.
13. The respondents pointed out that from the very beginning of his selection and appointment as T-1 Machine Operator under Category I of the Technical Services Rules in CIFT, the applicant was posted in the Functional Group II of Laboratory Technician where in addition to a good number of Laboratory Technicians and the Senior Operator, Senior Equipment Operator, Equipment Operator, Operator and the Projector Operator and other Scientific, biological and chemical assistants, the post of machine operator also is included. Annexure R- 2 is Appendix II to ICAR Handbook of Technical Services where the classification of technical posts into various posts have been detailed. Under the Functional Group of Laboratory Technician serial no.10 is Machine Operator. Unlike the other scientific Laboratory Technicians doing scientific work as enumerated in Group II posts the job of machine operator obviously is to operate and repair the machine which has the characteristics and attributes of a workshop job. Yet the post of machine operator in Group II does not confer any right to the applicant to take himself away from the Group II Laboratory Technician as the very distinct functional group to which he has been originally appointed remains the same. According to the respondents from the very beginning of his appointment, applicant was posted as machine operator under Group II Laboratory Technician. On the other hand, the applicants contend that his posting although ought to have been under the functional group of workshop, it was for the convenience of his superiors he was posted there. In support of his contention he narrates his experience and expertise in handling high voltage and high pressure equipments including the training he has received from the U.K for maintenance of such machines.
14. It appears that the applicant began to feel the tectonic shift when, to his chagrin, he saw that his conemporaries / juniors in the functional group of Workshop are getting faster promotions. After carefully examining the rival contentions of the parties in this case regarding the initial posting of the applicant in the functional group of Laboratory Technicians, we are of the view that the contentions of the respondents are more probable than the aspirational contentions of the applicant who wish to come out of the functional group of Laboratory Technicians to the functional group of workshop where he could earn quicker promotions without securing any additional educational qualifications.
15. The respondents point out in their reply statement that the applicant has been getting his timely promotions and that he has the prospects of getting promotions of T-3 to T-5 even while working under the functional Group of Laboratory Technicians in his capacity as Machine Operator. Respondents state that he has already availed of promotions from T-1 to T-3. One of the significant aspects we note in this case is that nearly 12 years after his joining the institute in the functional group of Laboratory Technicians as T-1, the applicant is raising a grievance that his placement in that functional group was wrong and has occurred as a mistake on the part of the administrators. In support of his case, the applicant relies on Annexures A-1 and A-3 recommendatory letters issued by the administrative officers of CIFT, Kochi whenever he makes a representation reiterating his grievance. We feel that if at all he was not happy and aggrieved with his posting as T-1 in the Functional Group of Laboratory Technicians, he should have immediately requested the appointing authority to post him in the Workshop Staff, if he had preferred that functional Group. After having allowed the water to flow under the bridge so long and after enjoying all the fruits and benefits including a foreign training he could secure while working in the Functional Group of Laboratory Technician, he cannot be heard to contend at this distant point of time that his initial appointment as T-1 in the functional Group of Laboratory Technician was a ''mistake'' occurred to the respondents.
16. It appears that he has garnered the support of some sympathisers like the Administrative officers of CIFT, but respondent nos.1 and 2 rightly did not pay much heed to the grievances raised by the applicant. It appears to us that any change in the Functional Group at this late point of time can lead to upset the seniority of many people and other consequences. Suffice it to say that the tardy attempt of the applicant to agitate the issue raised in this Original Application and his belated search for greener pastures within the organisation are not acceptable at this point of time. We are of the view that there is no merit in this Original Application and hence we dismiss the same.
17. In the result, the Original Application is dismissed. No costs.
(E.K.BHARAT BHUSHAN) (U.SARATHCHANDRAN)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
sv
List of Annexures of the applicant
Annexure A-1 - A true copy of the representation dated 6/7/2009.
Annexure A-1(a) - A true copy of the letter by CIFT on 28/08/2009.
Annexure A-2 - A true copy of the letter from CIFT to ICAR dated
23/11/09.
Annexure A-3 - A true copy of the letter from the ICAR dated
26/2/2010.
Annexure A-4 - A true copy of the letter dated 16/09/2011.
Annexure A-5 - A true copy of the said letter dated 11/09/2012.
Annexure A-6 - A true copy of the letter from the ICAR dated 8/10/12.
Annexure A-7 - A true copy of the representation to the 1 st respondent
dated 22/02/2014.
Annexure A-8 - True copy of letter dated 31/3/2014 from 2 nd
respondent.
Annexure A-9 - True copy of reply from 1st respondent by their letter
dated 24/4/2014 received by the 2 nd respondent.
Annexure A-10 - True copy of the order dated 4/3/2015.
Annexure A-11 - True copy of the order dated 28/4/2014.
Annexure A-12 - True copy of the order dated 1/5/2015.
Annexure A-13 - True copy of the relevant extract of operating of
instructions raised by stansted fluid Power Ltd.
Annexure A-14 - True copy of the representation by the 2 nd respondent
dated 20/7/2016.
Annexure A-15 - True copy of the Memorandum issued by the 2 nd
respondent dated 10/8/2016.
Annexure A-16 - True copy of the relevant extract of the Technical
Service of ICAR.
Annexure A-17 - True copy of the letter issued by the 2nd respondent
dated 23/7/2016 to Sri. Saju.
Annexure A-18 - True copy of the Annual Performance Appraisal Report
on 31/5/2015.
Annexure A-19 - True copy of the order dated 24/2/2006 issued by the
1st respondent.
List of Annexures of the respondent No.2
Annexure R-2(a) - True copy of order No. 18-1/97-Estt.IV dated
03.02.2000 of the 1st respondent regarding
qualifications and career advancement of Technical Employees of ICAR.
Annexure R-2(b) - True copy of Appendix II of ICAR Handbook of Technical Services with regard to classification of Technical Posts into various groups.
. . ..