Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
K Arunachalam vs M/O Defence on 21 September, 2022
1 of 19 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MADRAS BENCH \ OA/310/151/2021 DATED THIS THE' DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SHRI. T. JACOB, MEMBER (A) THE HON'BLE SMT LATA BAS WARAJ PATNE, MEMBER (J) K. Arunachalam, aged about 44 years old, S/o. C. Kasinathan, 79/1, CPWD Quarters, KK Nagar, Chennai - 600 078. M. Narayanan, aged about 46 years old, S/o. D, Masilamani, 224/A, 2nd Street, Lakshmi Nagar, Arricomebedu, Avadi, Chennai - 600 062. J. Venkatakrishnan, aged about 46 years S/o. K. Jayaraman, No. 9, Sri Ramanathan Nagar, 87, Veppampattu, Tiruvallur - 602 024 S. Murali, aged about 50 years old, S/o. K. Jayaraman, No. 26/24, K. C. Garden, - 6" Street, T. V. K. Nagar, Chennai - 600 082. S. Kalyanakumar, aged about 44 years old, S/o. K. Srinivasan, 13, 24 Main Road, Thenral Nagar, Pattabirzm, Chennai-600 072. D. Gabriel, aged about 46 years old, S/o. D. David, No.B4/2, Coast Guard Complex, 10. 1]. 2 of 19 G.M. Pettai Road, Royapuram, Chennai - 600 013. B.K. Ramesh, aged about 47 years old, S/o.B. C. Krishnamurthi, No.8, 9" Avenue, A sector, Sivasakthi Nagar, Annanur, Chennai - 600 109. A. Maia Louis Jesu Raj, aged about years old, 47 S/o. A. Alexander, No. 32/1, 34th Block, Manali New Town, Chennai - 600 103. S.S.V.V.H. Bapiraju, aged about 42 years old, S/o, S Brahmaraju, 167/2, Srirangam New town, Wimco Nagar, Chennai - 600 057. P. Ayanarulraj, aged about 43 years old, S/o. Pilavendran, 87/1, CPWD Quarters, K.K. Nagar, Chennai - 600 078. M. Sridharan, aged about 40 years old, S/o. P. Muthu, 01, Masilamani Street, D.R.R. Nagar, Avadi, Chennai - 600 054. E. Janarthanan, aged about 43 years old, S/o. N. Elumalai, 7, 51,Thirumagal Nagar, Ist Cross Street, Rajakilpakkam, Chennai - 600 073. 14. 13. 16. 17. 18. 19. 3 of 19 M. Kalaivani, aged about 43 years old, D/o. M. Ponnuswamy, 14/27, 2nd lane, Shastrinagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. N. Kavitha, aged about 45 years old, D/o. C. Natesan, 7/9, CPWD Quarters, KK. Nagar, Chennai - 600 078. B. Parameswaran, aged about 39 years old, S/o. K. Bethannan, 82/3, CPWD Quarters, K.K. Nagar, Chennai - 600 078 G. Mani, aged about 45 years old, S/o. P. Govinda Swamy, No.4, Dhakshinamoorthy Street, Ganapathy Nagar, Oragadam, Chennai - 600 053 P. Balachander, aged about 44 years old, S/o. T. Panchatshram, No. 78, 8th Block, 4th Street, Kaviarasu Kannadasan Nagar, Chennai - 600 118. M. Jothilingam, aged about 43 years old, S/o. C. Munuswamy, 5/11, West Street, Ganapathi puram, Ashok Nagar, East Thambaram, Chennai - 600 059. S. Subramani, aged about 31 years old, S/o. E, Shanmugam, No. 34, S P Kovil Street, 20, to Ww we os 4o0f 19 Periyathoppu, Manali, Chennai - 600 068. A. Mahesh Babu, aged about 33 years old, S/o. Andavar kupparasu, Plot no 1282, (F1) 17th Mam Road, Ram Nagar South, Madipakkam, Chennai - 600 091. M. Mohankumar, aged about 33 years old, S/o. Manoharan, 118/9, CPWD Quarters, K.K.Nagar, Chennai - 600 078. A. Panneer, aged about 32 years old, S/o. A. Ambigapathi, 305, Perumal Koil Street, Cheyyur Village (post), Ranipet (Dist), Arakkonam (Tk) - 631 004. B. Suresh, aged about 32 years old, S/o. J. Babu, 14, Stalin 2nd Street, Vallalar Nagar, Madampakkam, Guduvancheri - 603 202. V. Ajith Chandran, aged about 31 years old, S/o. K. Chandran, No.16, Vinayagapuram, Erikarai street, East Tambaram, Chennai - 600 059. J. Salamon, aged about 34 years old, S/o. John Packianathan, 21/9, Periyathambi Ist Street, Kasimedu, Chennai - 600 013. V.P. Kishore, aged about 29 years old, 27. 28. 29, 30. 5 of 19 S/o. V. Prabhu Doss, 10, Asirvatha puram, 2nd Street, Pulianthope, Chennai - 600 012. A. Mani, aged about 33 years old, S/o. V. Anandaraj 86/2, CPWD Quarters, K. k. Nager, Chennai - 600 078. P. Sivakumar, aged about 31 years old, S/o. D, Paramanatham, 61/28, 36th Jayaprakash Street, G.K.M. Colony, Chennai - 600 082. M, Jeyaraj, aged about 32 years old, S/o. M. Murugesan, C/o. K. Mohan, No 53, Kamber Street, Periyar Nagar, Tiruninravur - 602 024, Manishranjan, aged about 26 years old, S/o. Ram Lal Rai, NO.B3/6, Coast Guard Complex, G.M. Pettai Road, Royapuram, Chennai - 600 013. (Advocate: M/s. Sathiya Murihi) -Vs. The Union of India, Ministry of Defence, Rep. by its Hon'ble Secretary, Room No. 234, South Block, New Delhi - 110 011. The Director General, Coast Guard Headquarters, .. Applicants as 6 of 19 National Stadium Complex, New Delhi - 110 001. The Commander, Coast Guard Region (East), Near Napier Bridge, Chennai - 600 009. The Officer-in-Charge, Indian Coast Guard, Base Maintenance Unit (Chennai), 56, S. N. Chetty Street, Kasimedu, Chennai - 600 013. Respondents (Advocate: Mr. R.S. Krishnaswamy) 7 of 19 ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. T. Jacob, Member (A)) This OA has been filed by the applicants under Sec.19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"1) To Revise/ Amend the "the Coast Guard Technical and Industrial Staff (Group 'C' and Group 'D') Recruitment Rules, 1997" as per the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) vide No. AB.14017/48/ 2010-Estt.. (RR) dated 31.12.2010, li) Constitute Cadre Review Committee adhering to the instruction mentioned in Important/ Time Bound Circular dated 06.04.2016 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, D (Civ - I) and thereby file a Cadre Review Committee Report expeditiously and thereupon create Promotional Avenues by forming an hierarchy of post in the Tradesman Cadre in Coast Guard Unit and consequently fix the seniority to the applicants herein for the promotion, iil) To absorb the applicants as Chargeman from the Skilled Trades man Cadre who worked for a considerable lengthy period of time in the.above said Skilled Tradesman Cadre having eligibility or possessing required qualification instead of diract recruitment,
iv) To accomplish the above action within a stipulated period of time as prescribed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
§ of 19
v) And pass such further order or other order or orders deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
IW The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicants are as follows:-
The applicant and his Co-Employees who are the applicants No. 2 io 30 herein have been appointed and till now they are working under the 4"
Respondent. According to their respective appointment letters, they are engaged in various Trades in Indian Coast Guard which falls under the ambit anc purview of Tradesman (Skilled) cadre. At the primordial stage, on 1997 the Government of India, Ministry of Defence have issued Notification (Part If Section 4) framing rules regulating the method of recruitment to Group 'C' and Group 'D' Staff in Coast Guard and the same is known as "the Coast Guard Technical and Industrial Staff (Group 'C' and Group 'D') Recruitment Rules, 1997". The Nature of Jobs, Workloads, Terms and Conditions of Employment for Tradesman Cadre in 30th the Coast Guard and the Navy are one and the same. In Group 'C' Navy, the employees in Tradesman Cadre are having Promotional Avenues whereas in Group 'C' Coast Guard, there is no Promotional Avenues. Ministry of Defence, Government of India have instructed all its organizations vide letter No. 11(5)/2009-D(Civ1) dated 14.06.2010 for restructuring of Artisan (Tradesmen) cadre in the Defence establishments according to 6" CPC, Subsequently an Office Memorandum have been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) vide No. AB.14017/ 48/ 2010-Estt.. (RR) 9 of 19 Zy cated 31.12.2010 regarding the Revision of Guidelines for Framing/ Amendment/ Relaxation of Recruitment Rules. All the Units, Divisions and Organizations under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India having Tradesman (cadre and such other similar type of Cadre, have revised/ amended its Recruitment Rules and also revised Inter-Grade Ratio of the Artisan Staff (Tradesman) in Defence Establishments for various periods based on various Circulars issued by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) on various dates. Whereas in Coast Guard, till this date; no action has been taken by the Concerned Officers in the Coast Guard Head Quarters to revise/ amend the Recruitment Rules and the earlier Recruitment Rules framed on the year 1997 is still in force. Further there is no Promotional Avenues or any other Promotional hierarchy of Post for Tradesman Cadre in Coast Guard. The applicant and his co-employees have been appointed as Skilled structure Employee in Tradesman Cadre in Coast Guard and even till this date, the applicant and Co-employees working in the same avocation of work or under the same structure of work without any promotion in the post. No proper action has been taken by the Concerned Officers in the Coast Guard Head Quarters, to constitute the Cadre Review Committee for the purpose reviewing all the cadre including the Tradesman Cadre and to file Cadre Review proposals (i.e.) Cadre Review Committee Report referring to MOD (Finance). Several representations have been made to the Respondents in respect of the same but only evasive replies were given by the Concerned officers in the Coast Guard Head Quarters by Stating one reason 10 of 19
- or the other. The employees namely J. Palani, Turner (Skilled), S/ 1372 and R. Sambath, Spray Painter, S/ 1353 both of them working in Indian Coast Guard Air Station, have filed original Application in O.A. No. 310 of 2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench and the same has been disposed vide order dated 04.09.2015 and in the same this Tribunal directed the Respondents 1. to take a final decision as early as possible. Despite of the above said Order passed by the CAT in 0.A. No. 310 of 2015 dated 04.09.2015, contumaciously no proper action has been taken by the Respondents to implement the above said order in the same letter and spirit. Hence it is clear that the act of the Respondents in Coast Guard Head Quarters is evidently a Contempt of Court and they are liable to be punished under Contempt of Court Act. The concerned officers in the Coast Guard Head Quarters are often and often making false statements and they are frequently giving evasive replies by stating one reason or the other and they are also making self-contradictory statement in the issue of cadre review committee. As stated supra, several representations and applications under RTI, Act have been made to resolve the grievance pertaining to the Cadre Review Committee issue anc. various evasive replies and self-contradictory statements have been given by the concerned officers in the Coast Guard Head Quarters. Hence all the applicants 1 to 30 herein made a representation dated 19.09.2020 to the Respondents No.1 to 4 herein to resolve their grievance but till this date, neither résponse given nor proper actions taken by the respondents. Hence the applicants have filed the above Original ll of 19 © Application before this Tribunal seeking remedy.
3. The applicant has sought the aforesaid relief, inter alia, on the following grounds:-
a) The act of the respondents of not considering the applicant's representation is against law, facts and circumstances of the case.
b) The respondents ought to have considered the applicant's representation to resolve their grievance but till this date; neither action taken nor response given.
Therefore it is a clear violation of Principles of Natural Justice and dereliction of duty cast upon them.
c) The respondents ought to have considered that the Nature of Jobs, Workloads, Terms and Conditions of Employment for Tradesman Cadre in both the Coast Guard and the Navy are one and the same. The employees in Tradesman Cadre in Group 'C' Navy are having Promotional Avenues whereas in Group 'C"
Coast Guard, there are no Promotional Avenues. Hence the applicants are claiming parity treatment according to Doctrine of Principle of Parity and Promotional Avenues on par with tradesman cadre in Group 'C' Navy Unit and it is legitimate expectation,
4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has relied on the following decisions in support of his case:-
1) Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and Another Versus K.G.S. Bhatt and Anr. In 12 oF 19 Civil Appeal No. 3967 of 1987 dated 29.08.1989 reported in CDI 1989 SC 247;
ii) Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain Vs. Union of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1018 of 1989 dated 15.11.1989 reported in CDJ 1989 SC 077.
ii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tripura & Ors. Vs. K.K. Roy in Civil Appeal No. 6253 of 1998 dated 12.12.2003 reported in CDJ 2004 SC 156.
iv) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India & Others vs. Parashotam Das Bansal & Ors. Dated 05.02.2008 reported in CDI 2008 SC 313;
5. The respondents have filed a detailed reply statement. It is submitted that the Petitioner and others, were appointed in Indian Coast Guard (hereinafter referred to as ICG") in the post of 'Skilled Tradesman' under various trades through direct recruitment as per the provisions of Coast Guard Technical and Industrial Staff (Group 'C' and D") Recruitment Rules, 1997 notified in the Gazette vide SRO 102 dated 01 Jul 1997. On appointment, they have been posted at various units in Coast Guard. It is further submitted that the Technical Tradesman cadre in the ICG was earlier structured into three trades viz. Skilled, Semi-Skilled and Unskilled tradesmen in prevised pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590, Rs. 2650-4000 and Rs, 2550- 3200, respectively. Post implementation of 6" CPC recommendations, the posts of Semi-Skilled Tradesman and Unskilled Tradesman were merged and upgraded to 13 of 19 €)Group 'C' post in PB-I at Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1[800/- Accordingly, the nomenclature was changed to Semi-Skilled Tradesman and implemented vide Coast Guard Headquarters, New Delhi letter No. CP/0575/VI CPC cated 08 Feb 2013. At present, only two grades exist in the hierarchy of Technical Tradesman cadres wherein the post of 'Skilled Tradesman! is the highest promotional post in the hierarchy. As the post higher to Skilled Tradesman is not available in Coast Guard, the promotional avenues do not exist for the personnel appointed directly in the post of Skilled Tradesman. Apart from the Skilled Tradesman, few technical posts'in the analogous pay scale viz. Crane Operator, Fork Lift Operator, Spray Painter and MT Fitter are isolated in ICG. However, all such personnel are being granted financial upgradation under Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (henceforth referred as MACPS) in the Pay Level-3, Pay Level-4 and Pay Level-5 on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years' service respectively from the date of their joining Indian Coast Guard.
6. On the basis of 6th CPC recommendations at para 3.8.27 and amendment made in the Civilian in Defence Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, vide SRO T(E) dated 28.8.2009, Gol/MoD, letter No. 11(5)/2009-D(Civ.) dated 14.06.2010, conveyed the sanction of the President for restructuring of cadre of Artisan Staff in Defence Establishments w.e.f. 01°01.2006 as under: -
140f 19 Ser | Post Structure | Pay Scale | Revised ratlo Pay Level as per 7th CPC
(a) | Master Craftsman 13.75% {Pay Band PB-2|L-6 Grade Pay Rs. 4200
(b) | Highly Skilled-1 20.625% |Pay Band PB-1)L-5 Grade Pay Rs, 2800
(b) | Highly Skilled-I 20.625% {Pay Band PB-1/L-4 Grade Pay Rs. 2400 (d} | Skilled 45% Pay Band PB-1|L-2 Grade Pay Rs. 1900
7. It is submitted that the abovementioned sanction letter dated 14 Jun 2010 was neither addressed to ICG nor are technical tradesmen in ICG governed by Civilian in Defence Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. Further, as the post of Master Craftsman was non-existent in ICG, the cadre restructuring sanctioned vide MOD letter ibid was not directly applicable to ICG.
8. However, taking a view that there were nil promotional avenues for Skilled Tradesman and for the personnel borne in isolated technical posts, a Cadre Review Committee was constituted at Coast Guard Headquarters. Based on the report of this Cadre Review Committee, a proposal for creating promotional averues by cadre restructuring of Technical Tradesman in accordance with Gol/MoD letter No. 11(5¥2009D(Civ.1) dated 14.06.2010 was taken up with Gol/MoD in Oct, 2016. The case is under progress.
9, Subsequently, on the basis of feedback received from the services, MoD/D(Civ.1) vide their ID No. 24(01/2017-D(Civ. 1) dated 18 May 2020 has 15 of 19 © proposed the revised cadre structure ratio of Technical Tradesman as follows:
Ser | Post Structure | Pay Level '| ratio
(a)_| Master Craftsman 20% L-6
(b) | Highly Skilled-1 25% L-5
(b) | Highly Skilled-11 25% L-4
(d) | Skilled 30% L-2
10. It is submitted that in accordance with the revised structure ratio as mentioned above, the proposal was re-examined and it was also observed that creation of trade-wise hierarchical grades with due functional justification is warranted. Various other issues are also required to be addressed in the organizational interest prior taking up the case of cadre restructuring with Gol/MoD. Accordingly, the proposal is being analyzed at Coast Guard Headquarters to examine the feasibility of trade-wise inter-grade restructuring of Technical Tradesman duly takirig into consideration all measures of functional necessity of the organization while balancing the interests of the existing Tradesmen.
11. It is submitted that Technical Tradesmen in Indian Coast Guard cannot be compared to those of Indian Navy in terms of manpower Strength and nature of duties and responsibilities. Indian Navy has a vast technical infrastructure, duly managed by more than 26,138 tradesmen in four grades (as per SRO 43 dated 18 May 2012) whereas only 245 posts of Tradesman in two grades (including isolated technical posts) are sanctioned for Indian Coast Guard. These sanctioned posts are
16 of 19
- further dispersed to more than 59 units in Indian Coast Guard.
12. The ICG ts a growing organization wherein the creation of many technical units and augmentation of manpower thereof is under progress. Cadre review or restructure is a specialized exercise which is being carried out taking into consideration all aspects of functional necessity, organizational objectives, manpower planning, stagnation at various levels, etc. It is relevant to mention that the technical infrastructure and strength of technical tradesmen of Coast Guard is very meagre in comparison with the Indian Navy or other Services in the Ministry of Defence. Hence, it is not obligatory for the Coast Guard to implement similar cadre restructure at par with Indian Navy merely to provide promotional avenues to the existing tradesmen. It is relevant to mention that the petitioners, though stagnated in the entry grade, are being benefited financially under MACPS. The respondents pray for dismissal of the OA.
13. We have heard Ld. Counsel on both sides and perused the pleadings end materials placed on record.
14. Admittedly no promotional posts for Skilled Tradesman exist in Indian Coast Guard. In lieu of this, they are being granted lst, 2nd and 3rd financial upgradations under Modified Assured Progression Scheme on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service respectively. A cadre review committee was already constituted for cadre restructuring of Technical tradesmen in Coast Guard in CGHQ and as per the recommendations of the Committee, a proposal for creating ' 17 of 19 €) Promotional avenues by the method of cadre restructuring of Technical Tradesman cadre in accordance with Gol/MoD letter No. I(5¥2009-D(Civ.1) dated 14 Jun 2010 was taken up with Gol/MoD in Oct, 2016. However, in accordance with the revised inter-grade ratio as mentioned at para 5 of the brief facts of the case, the proposal has been re-examined and it is also observed that creation of trade-wise hierarchical grades with due functional justification is warranted. Various other issues are also required to be addressed in the organizational interest prior taking up the case of cadre restructuring with Gol / MOD. Accordingly, feasibility study is being undertaken for trade-wise inter-grade restructure of Technical Tradesman duly taking into consideration all measures of functional necessity of the organization while balancing the interests of the existing Tradesmen.
15. The DoP&T O.M. No. AB.14017/48/2010-Estt. (RR) dated 31.12.2010 contains the guidelines for framing/amendment/relaxation of recruitment rules. It is not meant for creation of new posts by way of cadre restructuring. Hence, the demand of the petitioners is misleading and not supported by the said Rules. The existing recruitment rules of technical tradesmen in Coast Guard notified vide SRO 102 dated 01 Jul 1997 which contains the post of skilled tradesmen and SRO 45 dated 21 May 2012 which contains the revised posts of Semi-skilled tradesmen are due for revision as per the said rules, However, the same is kept in abeyance due to pending finalization of cadre restructure.
16. In service jurisprudence, an employee cannot claim promotion as a matter of 18 of 19 ~right. However, he has a right to be considered for promotion. In the instant case, no doubt that the applicants after having been appointed in their respective Trades languishing for many years to go higher up in their career. As there was no provision made in the Recruitment Rules, they could not be promoted. However, it is seen that they were granted financial upgradation under MACP Scheme on completion of 10 years of service. The Coast Guard in their reply statement has clearly undertaken that the organization is actively pursuing the case for creation of a suitable Cadre hierarchy of Skilled Tradesman. in this regard, a feasibility study for Cadre restructure has been examined apart from the other scope of creation of hierarchal grades in the upcoming technical units. As it is a policy decision of the Government/concerned Department, it will take its own time.
17. In this regard, the following specific observation of the Apex Court in the Constitutional Bench judgment in the case of Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India,(2008) 6 SCC I, is very much relevant:-
"37. The Indian courts have scrupulously refrained from entering into the domain of policy determination or policy evaluation while exercising the power of judicial review. This Court has emphasised that it does not sit in appeal over a policy decision and does not substitute nor does it examine the wisdont of the policy choice. It interferes with policy decision only when it finds the policy to be palpably arbitrary, mala fide or discriminatory."
18. The Apex Court in the case of Basic Education Board, U.P. v. Upendra Rai, . 19 of 19 ot (2008) 3 SCC 432, at page 437 held as under:
a 15. Grant of equivalence and/or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision which is in the sole discretion of the authority concerned, and the court has nothing to do with such matters. The matter of equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the Government, and the court does not have expertise in such matters. Hence it should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in it.
19. As the respondents have already taken some steps, they are directed to expedite the matter which is placed before the Cadre Review Committee and take a final decision as early as possible.
20. The OA is disposed of as above without any order as to costs.
/ Ce ee cee te eg a Fee, =