Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
R Sundarammal vs Medical Council Of India, M/O Health And ... on 11 February, 2025
1 OA 310/00417/2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00417/2014
Dated, the 11th day of February, Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR.M.SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)
&
HON'BLE MR.SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (A)
R.Sundarammal,
Senior Library and Information Officer,
Vector Control Research Centre
(Indian Council of Medical Research),
Puducherry. ... Applicant (Party in person)
Vs.
1 Union of India,
rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Department of Health Research,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
New Delhi
2. Director General,
Indian Council of Medical Research,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Director,
Vector Control Research Centre,
Puducherry. .... Respondents
By Advocate Mr.M.Kishore Kumar
2 OA 310/00417/2014
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr.Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member(A)) The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"(1) To direct the respondents to pay the benefits of financial up gradation under the ACP Scheme to the applicant by paying the benefits of the first up gradation on completion of 12 years of service and the second benefit under MACP on completion of 24 years of service and third benefit when the applicant completed of 30 years of service and to pay scale of Rs. 14300-
18300 (5th pay commission) - Rs. 37,400--67000 with grade pay Rs-8700 (6th pay commission) and with the Grade Pay of Rs.8900 and Rs.10000/- with arrears with interest of Rs.12% per annum and to pass such other or further orders in the interest of justice and thus render justice."
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are as follows:
2.1 The applicant joined service on 16.6.1980 as Librarian in the pay scale of Rs.425-700. The applicant was having the basic qualification of B.Sc., B.Lib.Sc while joining the service and subsequently qualified the degrees - Master of Library and Information Science, M.A and M.Phil (Library science). At that time of joining the service, there were nearly 18 Libraries in the permanent Centre of Indian Council of Medical Research and qualified Librarians were placed in the pay scale of Rs.650-960 whereas the applicant who is having same qualification was placed in the lower pay scale of Rs.425-700. The applicant made
3 OA 310/00417/2014 representations to the authorities for revising the pay scale of the applicant on par with the other Librarians and finally an order was passed by the respondent placing the applicant in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 which is corresponding pay scale of Rs.650- 960. 2.2 While so, the IV Pay Commission recommended for establishment of Library Review Committee and the Library Review Committee report was submitted by the Committee which was accepted by the Government through an order dated 24.7.1990 implementing the categorization of Librarians on the basis of the quality as well as size of the Libraries. As per the categorization of Libraries, the Librarians were designated as follows:
Library and Information Assistant 1400-2600 5000-8000 Sr. Library and Information Assistant 1640-2900 5500-9000 Assistant Library and Information Officer 2000-3500 6500-10500 Library and Information Officer 3000-4500 10000-15200 Director (Library and Information) 4500-5700 14300-18300 Director in the pay scale of Rs.5700-6700 for the Category-V Libraries. 2.3 The respondents have categorized the Vector Control Research Centre - library as Category-III Library and again another order was issued by the respondent through which the Libraries categorized as Category-III Library and Director of Vector Control Research Centre to 4 OA 310/00417/2014 place the Librarian in the appropriate grade. Even though the order was issued in 1999, the second respondent has issued an order on 13.6.2000 revising the post of applicant as Library and Information Officer and placed her in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 with effect from 10.7.1997 instead of placing the applicant on the said scale with effect from 24.7.1990.
2.4 The applicant submits that as per in the High Court of judicature at Madras, the experience need not be in any particular pay scale for the pay revision and the total number of years of service rendered in other institutes and also in the lower grade should be counted for the pay revision according to the Category of the library if the candidates have essential basic qualification. Based on the above judgment, the pay has been revised from the initial date of appointment according to the category of the library. (Shri.R.Rathinasabapathi). 2.5 The ICMR had implemented ACP scheme to 5 Head library professionals working in other ICMR Institutes in pursuance of Ministry of Personnel, Grievances and Pension (DOPT) OM No.35034/1/97-Estt.
(D) Dated 9.8.1999 & Council's letter No.16/82/99-Admn dated 16.9.99 and orders passed by the C.A.T. New Delhi, vide O.A. No.1308/2007 (K.V Ratnakar) dated 16.01.2008 whose pay scales were revised according to the category of the library and granted the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200 with effect from 9.8.1999 under ACP Scheme. As per 5 OA 310/00417/2014 the categorization, the applicant's pay scale was revised to Rs.3000- 4500 on the basis of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. No.919 of 1996. Subsequently the Library was categorized as Category- IV on 8.4.2010 and so the pay scale which is attached to the Category- IV Libraries have to be given to the applicant namely Rs.37400-67000 with Grade Pay of Rs.8700 as per rules, but the applicant was given the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.7,600/- designating as Senior Library and Information Officer which is against the rules. 2.6 The applicant submits that the applicant joined service in 16.6.1980 and so the applicant is entitled to get ACP as per rules since the applicant is working in the same post right from the date of joining till date. The applicant is entitled to get the first ACP on 9.8.1999 (though she completed 12 years service on 16.06.1992 but ACP scheme came into effect only on 9.8.1999) and the second MACP on 01.09.2008 (though she completed 24 years service on 16.06.2004 MACP came into effect only on 01.09.2008) and the third MACP on 16.6.2010 as per the revised MACP scheme since the applicant completed 30 years of service on 16.6.2010. The applicant is entitled to get first ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 14300-18300 (5th pay commission) and Rs. 37,400-- 67000 with grade pay Rs-8700 (6th pay commission). The applicant is entitled to get second MACP in the pay scale of Rs. 37,400--67000 with grade pay Rs-8900 (In pursuance of 6 OA 310/00417/2014 Ministry of Personnel, Grievances and Pension (DOPT) OM No.35034/3/2008-Estt. (D), Government of India, New Delhi 110001, 19th May 2009, with effect from 01.09.2008. The applicant is entitled to get third MACP in the pay scale of Rs. 37,400-67000 with grade pay Rs-10,000 with effect from 16.6.2010 with arrears. The applicant has been making representations to the authorities for the implementation of ACP which was not considered by the respondent so far. 2.7 The respondent was taking the stand that the up gradation given to the applicant as well as similarly placed persons amounted to promotion and so ACP cannot be considered. So the matter (K.V.Ratnakar) was taken before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench which allowed the Original Application and directed the respondent to grant the ACP and then following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and State of Rajasthan Vs. Paswamy, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the cadre re-organization and implementation of higher pay scale is not promotion and so the applicants are entitled to get the benefit of ACP with effect from the date of appointment after completion of 12 years of and the Writ Petition filed against the order passed by the Tribunal was dismissed. Hence, the applicant is entitled to get the benefit of pay revision. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA seeking the aforesaid relief.
7 OA 310/00417/2014
3. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their reply statement refuting all the averments made in the OA, except those which are admitted on facts. 3.1 The applicant was appointed as "Librarian" in the scale of Pay of Rs. 425-15-500-EB-15- 560-20-700 (III CPC) by the 3rd respondent in the year 1980 and the applicant joined on 16th June, 1980. The scale of pay was translated to Rs. 1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300 in IV CPC w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and her pay was fixed Rs. 1520/- p.m. The applicant was promoted as "Senior Librarian" on 10.07.1989 in the scale of pay of Rs. 2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200 (IV CPC) and placed on probation for a period of two years. The probation was satisfactorily completed by her on the afternoon of 09.07.1991. It is important to mention herein that the applicant was appointed as Librarian on 16.06.1980 and the applicant's basic qualification at the time of initial appointment was B.Sc., and B. Lib. Sci. and subsequently acquired MLIS, MA and M.Phil. 3.2 Consequent upon ICMR categorization of VCRC Library under Category III, the post of Senior Librarian had been upgraded and those who fulfilled the requisite qualification and experience required for the post of Library & Information Officer, as per RR, were to be designated as Library & Information Officer in the scale of pay of Rs. 3000-4500. Accordingly, the applicant, who completed 8 years experience in lower grade, was designated as "Library & Information Officer" w.e.f.
8 OA 310/00417/2014 10.07.1997 in the scale of pay of Rs. 3000-4500 (IV CPC) and placed in the revised scale of pay of Rs.10,000-325-15,200 on the implementation of V CPC. On implementation of VI CPC her scale of pay was revised to PB-3:Rs.15,600-39,100 + Grade Pay Rs.6600/-. It is further submitted that the ICMR vide their letter dated 17.05.2010 as circulated to the Directors/Director Incharge of all Institutes/Centres of ICMR had reviewed the categorization of ICMR laboratories. 3.3 According to ICMR O.M. No. 16/34/2006-Admn.II (Part.) dated 01.06.2010, the Director General conveyed the upgradation and redesignation of Mrs.R.Sundarammal, Library & Information Officer as Senior Library & Information Officer, the next hierarchical promotional post of Library & Information Officer w.e.f. 08.04.2010 and placed in the upgraded pay scale of PB-3: Rs. 15600-39100 + Grade Pay of Rs. 7600 in accordance with the Department of Expenditure O.M. No. 19(1)/IC/86 dated 24.07.90 communicated vide ICMR D.O. letter No. 19/77/74-CL/90-Admn.Il (Pt.1) dt. Nil.
3.4 The IV CPC suggested for setting up of a Committee to undertake review of the pay scales, qualifications and recruitment. A Review Committee was set up by the Department of Culture in September 1987 for this purpose. The Report of Review Committee was issued by O.M.No.F. No. 19(1)/(C)/86 dt. 24.07.1990 by Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India The following pay 9 OA 310/00417/2014 structure was decided for Library staff:
SI. No. Designation Existing pay scale Revised pay Scale Remarks (Rs.) (Rs.) 1 Junior Library 750-940 750-940 Direct entry Middle Attendant pass 2 Library Attendant 775-1025 775-1025 Promotional Grade 3 Senior Library 800-1150 800-1150 Promotional Grade Attendant 4 Library Clerk 825-1200 950-1500 Direct entry 950-1400 950-1500 Matriculation 975-1540 975-1660 5 Library Information 1200-1800 1400-2600 Direct entry Assistant 1200-2040 1320-2040 Graduate with Bachelor 1350-2200 in Library Science 1400-2200 Promotional Grade for 1400-2600 Library Clerks 6 Senior Library & 1640-2900 1640-2900 Direct entry Information Assistant 1600-2500 Post Graduate with Bachelor in Library Science Promotional Grade for Library Information Assistant 7 Assistant Library and 2000-3200 2000-3500 Promotion / Direct Information Officer 2000-3500 Recruitment 2200-4000 8 Library and 3000-4500 3000-4500 Promotion / Direct Recruitment Information Officer 9 Senior Library and 3700-5000 3700-5000 Promotion / Direct Information Officer Recruitment 10 Principal Library and 4500-5700 4500-5700 Promotion / Direct Information Officer / Recruitment Director 11 5900-6700 Promotion / Direct Recruitment 12 7300-7600 Promotion/ Direct Recruitment
10 OA 310/00417/2014 3.5 As per the above OM, as mentioned in the remarks column that the post of "Library Information Assistant" & "Senior Library & Information Assistant" are direct entry with qualification of Graduate with Bachelor in Library Science/ Promotional Grade for Library Clerks and Sr. Lib. Information Assistant for Library Information Assistant respectively. Regarding the post of Assistant Library & Information Officer, Library & Information Officer and Senior Library & Information Officer are Promotional Grade. As per Recruitment Rules for Library Staff Cadre post at ICMR, conveyed vide its letter No16/10/2012- Admn.ll dated 25.06.2013, the method of recruitment for the post of Library & Information Officer and Senior Library & Information Officer is 100% by promotion.
3.6 As per the above statement, it is seen that, the applicant had availed three promotions from the initial appointment of Librarian i.e.
(i) Senior Librarian (ii) Library & Information Officer and (iii) Senior Library & Information Officer. As these posts are placed in a higher scale of pay and higher responsibilities due to the categorization of Library, the placement/upgraded from Senior Librarian to Library & Information Officer and Senior Library & Information Officer are treated as promotion.
3.7 Hence, the applicant is not eligible for the Assured Career Progression Scheme/Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme for 11 OA 310/00417/2014 the 12, 20 & 30 years of service, as she availed three financial upgradation as per ICMR letter No. 19/77/74-CL/90-Admn.II (Pt-I). A chart showing the promotion received by the applicant is as under:-
S.No. Post Date Promotion to Next
Grade
1 Librarian 16.5.1980
2 Sr. Librarian 10/07/89 9 years
3 Library & Information Officer 10.7.1997 8 years
4 Sr. Library & Information 8.4.2010 13 years
Officer
The applicant attained the age of 60 years on 07.03.2014, retired on superannuation on the afternoon of 31.03.2014 and she was relieved of her service on 31.03.2014 AN) vide office order No. VCRC/Estt./P-19 (17)/PEN-33/2014/2013-14/1535 dt. 31.03.2014. 3.8 The respondents in support of their contention have relied upon the following decisions:
(i) Ο.Α.Νο.1678/2007 Mrs.PRATHIBHA PRASHAR -Vs- UNION OF INDIA, DG, NATIONAL MUSEUM, NEW DELHI (Hon'ble CAT-Principal Bench) dated 13-08-2013
(ii) W.P.(Civil) No.6210 of 2014 Mrs.PRATHIBHA PRASHAR -Vs- UNION OF INDIA, DG, NATIONAL MUSEUM, NEW DELHI (Hon'ble Delhi High Court) dated 19-5-16
(iii) Civil appeal Nos.5829-5830 of 2012 RAMA NAND AND ORS -VS- CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR (Hon'ble APEX COURT) dated 06-08-2020 Hence they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
12 OA 310/00417/2014
4. The applicant has filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents reiterating the averments made in the OA and further stating that the applicant was placed in the post of Senior Librarian on the basis of the upgradation on par with other I.C.M.R. Librarians and not on the basis of the promotion at all. The contention of the respondents that on the implementation of the Library Review Committee on 24.7.1990 the applicant has been redesignated as Librarian is legally not sustainable because on the basis of the categorization as per 24.7.1990 the applicant would have been placed in the post of Library and Information Officer and redesignating the applicant as Library Information Assistant is against rules. 4.1 The contention of the respondents that the applicant was redesignated as Library and Information Officer with effect from 10.7.1997 after completing 8 years is against law because as per the categorisation and also the rules given in O.M. No.19(1)/IC/86 dated 24.7.1990 orders on the basis of the categorization, the post of the applicant ought to have been redesignated as Library and Information Officer with effect from 24.7.1990. As per the Review Committee implementation order, the applicant ought to have been placed in the Assistant Library Information Officer with effect from 01.01.1986 as the VCRC Library was Category-III.
4.2 Further the averment that the post of Library and Information 13 OA 310/00417/2014 Assistant and Senior Library and Information Assistant are direct entry post is not applicable in the case of the applicant because the applicant was in service right from 16.6.1980 and the respondents cannot raise such an issue at this stage. Further the averment that the applicant has availed 3 promotions also are factually incorrect. The applicant has been placed in the post of Senior Librarian on the basis of the placement of other Librarians under the I.C.M.R. and the said post ought to have been redesignated as Assistant Library and Information Officer as the applicant was in-charge of Category-III Library. The above statement is made by the respondent with a view to deny A.C.P. which the applicant is entitled as per Government orders. Moreover, the Hon'ble Courts have considered the issue and passed orders in favour of other similarly placed Librarians.
4.3 The applicant has filed a comparative statement wherein she has given the tabular column showing the details of similarly placed person Mr.K.V.Ratnakar and hers which is extracted hereunder:
SI. Name Date of Rationali Cate- Pay Pay scale 1st ACP 2nd MACP 3rd MACP No. joining sed pay gory of scale in ICMR/ scale the after 1.1.1996 Scale/4th Library categori PC -sation 1 K.V.Ratnakar 10/07/86 Scale of II 2000- 6500- 09.08.99 1.9.2008 10.7.2016 ICMR HQ 425-700/ pay 3500 10600 10000- PB-3 GP PB 37400-
New Delhi 325- 7600 GP 8700
1400-2600 1400- 15200 granted granted
2600 Granted
5000-8000
5000-
8000
2 R.Sundaram- 16.6.80 Scale of III 3000- 10000- 9.8.1999 01/09/08 16.6.2010
mal VCRC pay 4500 325- 14300- 37400-GP 37400 GP
425-700/ 15200 18300 8900 (to 10000 (to
14 OA 310/00417/2014
Puducherry 1400-2600 2000- (to be be be
3500 granted) granted) granted)
5000-8000
5. Heard the applicant in person and learned counsel Mr.M.Kishore Kumar for the respondents and gone through the relevant records.
6. We have gone through the facts of the case, submissions made by the learned counsels and perused the material available on record.
7. The issue before us for adjudication is -
"Whether upgradation on mergers/recommendations of Pay Commissions or Committees is to be considered as promotion/financial upgradations for the purpose of ACP/MACP ?
8. The applicant has argued that all the persons working in the Libraries were summarily given the scales on upgradation of the Library on the recommendation of the Committee formed for this purpose. The respondents in their reply statement have, with respect to the employment details of the applicant, stated as under :
Sl.N Name of the Date Scale of Promotion Remarks
o. Post pay (Rs.) to next
grade (in
years)
1 Librarian 16/05/80 425-7000 - Initial
(III CPC) appointme
nt
2 Senior Librarian 10/07/89 2000-3200 9 years Promotion
15 OA 310/00417/2014
(IV CPC)
3 Library & 10/07/97 10000- 8 years Upgraded
Information 15200 (to be
Officer (IV CPC) treated as
promotion)
4 Senior Library 08/04/10 G.P. 7,600 13 years Upgraded
Information (VI CPC) (tobe
Officer treated as
promotion)
She retired on superannuation w.e.f. 31.03.2014
9. We, therefore, find that there is agreement on the fact that the posts were upgraded on account of upgradation of the Library. It has been argued for the respondents that these upgradations were to be treated as promotions and the applicant having been promoted on three occasions, is not entitled for the MACP/ACP. As against these, the applicant argues that the question is settled in favour of the applicant by the decision in the case of Sri K.V.Ratnakar, a similarly placed person, by the CAT, Principal Bench in its order dated 08.01.2008 in OA. 1308 of 2007. The respondents state that the said Sri Ratnakar was not allowed any promotions.
10. Before we proceed any further, it would be in the fitness of things to mention here that in the upgradation provided to the applicant on the re-categorization of the Library, neither her merit nor seniority was a consideration. It is also observed that the upgraded post, did not carry any higher responsibilities and duties. It was only on account of 16 OA 310/00417/2014 the re-categorization/upgradation of the Library.
11. We further observe that in the case of Sri K.V.Ratnakar, Principal Bench at page-6 of its order dated 08.01.2008 in OA.1308 of 2007 has reproduced the rejection order in his case which clearly shows that the issue in the case was similar to the issue before us - whether upgradation on re-categorization of Libraries was to be considered as promotion for purposes of ACP/MACP ?
12. In their detailed order, and after considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarsem Singh & Anr vs, State of Punjab & Ors. and State of Rajasthan vs. Fateh Chand Soni, the CAT Principal Bench had held that the decisions did not help the case of the respondents i.e. ICMR, which is also the respondent in the case before us. Relying on the Madras Bench of this Tribunal's decision in the case of Ratinasabhapati (in OA.1085 of 2002) which was later upheld by the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the CAT Principal Bench held that the placement of the applicant is not a promotion and applicant is eligible for consideration for grant of upgradation under the ACP Scheme. The W.P.No.172 of 2012 challenging the order of the CAT, Principal Bench was dismissed on grounds of delays and latches as having been filed after more than four years after implementation of the order of the CAT. However, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court also made the following observations :
17 OA 310/00417/2014
(i) The bogie of large number of similarly situated persons raising claims has been busted evidenced by the fact that we find only two such similarly placed persons who may possibly have a claim. They are Mrs.R.Sundarammal and Mr.Naresh Aggarwal.
(ii) In para-3 of the decision their Lordships opined that they agreed that the decision in Tarsem Singh and Fateh Chand Soni have been correctly distinguished by the CAT, Principal Bench and is not applicable in the case of the applicant .
(iii) That there was no binding precedent in view of the subsequent decision of the CAT in OA 2279 of 2007 in the case of Mallik Singh Yadav dismissing the application. It however hastened to add that Sri Mallik Singh Yadav did challenge the decision of the Tribunal by filing a Writ Petition before that Court (Delhi High Court), but did not press the same to its logical conclusion since he was assured similar benefit as granted to the Respondent No.1 (K.V.Ratnakar) and unfortunately could not take it further since he died.
13. The SLP filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed (C.C.No.20366 of 2013) by order dated 16.12.2013.
14. Before we proceed any further, it is to be mentioned that in the case of Ratnakar when several persons had impleaded themselves including the applicant, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi found the applicant in this case to be similarly placed and having a similar claim. We also 18 OA 310/00417/2014 observe that the CAT, Principal Bench had answered the question now before us in this case in favour of the applicant Sri K.V.Ratnakar. The same has become final. Even before it had reached finality the same had been implemented by the department unequivocally as observed by the Hon'ble High Court.
15. Under these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the applicant, a similarly placed person as K.V.Ratnakar, is entitled to the similar relief, i.e. the placements resulting on account of re- categorization of Library is not to be counted as promotion for the purpose of ACP/MACP. The applicant is therefore, entitled to all consequential benefits of pay fixation including arrears and retiral benefits flowing from such a finding. The respondents are directed to complete the exercise of pay fixation and other consequential benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The payments arising from such refixation will be paid to the applicant within two months thereafter.
16. In the result, the OA is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA) (M.SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER (J)
.02.2025
MT/sd