Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
K Ram Mohan vs The Director Cmfri Kochi on 16 September, 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A No. 180/00181/2020
Tuesday, this the 16th day of September, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs. V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
K. Ram Mohan, S/o Late Sudarsana Rao, aged 65 years,
Retired Technical Officer (T-6), Visakhapatnam Regional Centre
of Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI),
Residing at 27-7-2, Ayodyanagar, Madhuravada,
Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 530 048. -Applicant
[By Advocates : Mr. P.K. Madhusoodanan & Mr. Binoy Krishna
P.M]
Versus
1. The Director, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute,
(Indian Council of Agricultural Research),
P.B.No.1603, Ernakulam North P.O., Kochi - 682 018.
2. The Secretary, Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.
3. The Assessment Committee, represented by its Chairman,
ASRB, Krishi Anusandan Bhavan, Pusa, New Delhi - 110 012.
4. Assistant Administrative Officer (Estt),
Central Marine Research Institute,
Post Box No.1603, Ernakulam North P.O., Kochi - 682 018.
-Respondents
[By Advocate : Mr. P. Santhosh Kumar]
The Original Application having been heard on 01.07.2025, the
Tribunal on 16.09.2025 delivered the following:
2025.09.16
16:52:12
VISHAL
+05'30'
2024.3.0
2
O.A. No.180/00181/2020
O R D E R :-
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member The applicant was appointed as a Senior Technical Assistant in T-4 grade under the respondents initially in Bangalore in 1984. In 2002, he joined the Regional Centre of CMFRI, Visakhapatnam in T-5 grade. By Annexure A-1 office order dated 07.12.2011, he was granted merit assessment promotion to T-6 in category III with effect from 01.07.2009. He was superannuated on attainment of age of superannuation on 31.07.2013. Claiming that he is entitled for merit assessment promotion to T-6 grade with effect from 01.07.2003 as per the Technical Service Rules, he submitted a representation for preponing his merit promotion with effect from 01.07.2003. There was unnecessary delay in processing and disposing of the representation. Hence, he submitted Annexure A-2 representation seeking the same relief with consequential merit assessment promotion and benefits. By Annexure A-3 representation dated 12.01.2017, he requested respondents again to reconsider promotion to T-6 with effect from 01.07.1993 to 30.06.2003.
2. By Annexure A-4 dated 28.12.2017, he was informed that an assessment committee did not recommend him to the next higher gradeas he had not completed 10 years for assessment as on 01.07.2003. Further, it 2025.09.16 16:52:12 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0 3 O.A. No.180/00181/2020 was informed that the CRs for the period 1995-1996 was not available. However, he was directed to fill up assessment proforma for the period 01.07.2003 to 2006, to get it reviewed. He forwarded it by Annexure A-5. By Annexure A-7 order, which is impugned in this O.A, his request was rejected. He was informed by the office order that Authority had declined to promote him to T-6 for the period from 01.07.2003. Proceedings of the Committee meeting held on 27.01.2009 and the recommendation of the same in evaluation period from 01.07.1993 to 30.06.2009 were produced as Annexures A-11 to A-18. Annexure A-19 is the relevant guidelines. Annexure A-20 was an O.M issued by the DoPT governing promotions in existence during the relevant period. Annexure A-21 was an amendment proposed to the guidelines and Annexure A-22 was a copy of the counsel's letter. Relying on the above documents, the applicant contended that his promotion was entitled to be preponed with effect from 01.07.2003. He also contended that the benchmark prescribed in Annexures A-19 to A-22 was for recommending to T-6 from T-5 and from T-6 to T-7 was "good" which is equal to 40%. The appellant got more than 40% as revealed from Annexures A-11 to A-18. It was contended that the Committee ignored the guidelines and refused to promote the applicant from T-5 to T-6 and thereafter to further grades up to T-8.
2025.09.16 16:52:12 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0 4 O.A. No.180/00181/2020
3. Contending that Annexure A-7 was illegal and not in accordance with the guidelines, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs.
(a) Set aside Annexure-A7.
(b) Call for the entire records of the case leading to Assessment Committee Report dated 12.11.2018 and the approval of the competent authority in the council and set aside the same as erroneous, illegal and opposed to rules, and rulings on the subject.
(c) Issue necessary directions to the respondents to review and grant Assessment promotions to the applicant to T-6 grade and T-7-8 grade in category III in accordance with law, with effect from his due dates, untrammeled by Annexure-A7 and the Assessment Committee report dated 12.11.2018, rectifying the miscarriage of justice done to the applicant, with all attendant monetary benefits arising therefrom within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(d) Issue necessary directions to the Respondents to refix his pay and pension on review of his assessment promotions to T-6 as well as on consideration for promotion to T-7-8, preponing his date of promotions from his due dates and grant him all benefits, including monetary arrears arising therefrom with 18% penal interest, till its disbursement, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(e) Award costs of these proceedings.
(f) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.
2025.09.16 16:52:12 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0 5 O.A. No.180/00181/2020
4. In the reply statement, it was claimed that the applicant was promoted to T-5 with effect from 01.07.1993. On completion of 5 years, performance during 01.07.1993 to 30.06.1998 was assessed by a Committee. It did not recommend for promotion to T-6, since he did not have the basic essential qualification of post graduate degree in the relevant field as on the date of assessment. However, he was granted two advance increments in lieu of promotion with effect from 01.07.1998. Annexure R-1(a) was New Technical Service Rules introduced with effect from 03.02.2000. As per the new guidelines, the T-5 technical personnel who do not possess the essential qualification as prescribed for direct recruitment in category III shall be eligible for assessment promotion to T-6 grade under category III after completing 10 years of service in T-5 grade provided that such technical personnel are possessing the qualification prescribed for direct recruitment category. Accordingly, the applicant was found lacking in the basic qualifications. Accordingly, he was not granted the benefit which was conveyed to him by Annexure A-7.
5. The rejoinder was filed reiterating the contentions set up in the Original Application and also relying on Annexure A-23 order in O.A Nos.663 & 666/2011 and Annexure A-24 judgment of the Hon'ble High 2025.09.16 16:52:12 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0 6 O.A. No.180/00181/2020 Court in OP (CAT) No.1489/2013 confirming the common order in O.A Nos.663 & 666/2011.
6. Additional reply statement was filed by the respondents reiterating the contention in the original reply statement and affirming that the performance of the applicant in T-6 grade for the period 01.07.1993 to 30.6.2006 was assessed by a duly constitued Assessment Committee but the Committee did not recommend him for promotion as he did not complete the minimum required period of 10 years of service as prescribed in new TSR as he was on leave for 16 months from 30.04.1995 to 30.08.1996. The Committee also did not recommend the applicant for assessment promotion in the subsequent years upto 30.06.2008.
7. Heard both sides and examined the records.
8. In the reply statement, it was specifically contended by the respondents that on completion of 5 years of service in T-5 grade, the performance of the applicant during the period 01.07.1993 to 30.06.1998 was assessed by a duly constituted Assessment Committee in accordance with the provisions contained in Technical Service Rules. The Committee 2025.09.16 16:52:12 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0 7 O.A. No.180/00181/2020 did not recommend him for assessment promotion in T-6 grade as he was not having the minimum essential qualification in the relevant field i.e. M.Sc. on the date of assessment. The new Technical Service Rules dated 03.02.2000 was produced as Annexure R-1(a). It was stated that the applicant had opted for new Technical Service Rules. As per the new TSR, T-5 technical personnel who do not possess the essential qualification as prescribed for direct recruitment in category III shall be eligible for assessment promotion to T-6 grade under category III after completing 10 years of service in T-5 grade provided that such technical personnel are possessing the qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment to category II. Accordingly, the performance of the applicant during the period 01.07.1993 to 30.06.1998 was assessed by a duly constitued Assessment Committee. The Committee noted that his assessment for the period was not available with the 1st respondent as the applicant was employed in Bangalore and Hyderabad during the assessment period. However, the Committee considered the grading in his CRs for the performance reflected in the CRs for the period 01.07.1993 to 30.06.2003. He has failed to achieve the grading/ marks as per the new TSR guidelines which had come into force with effect from 03.02.2000. There is provision for re-assessment till the date of incumbent gets promotion in the next higher grade. Accordingly, the 2025.09.16 16:52:12 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0 8 O.A. No.180/00181/2020 Committee considered his performance in the subsequent years ending in 2004 to 2009 to get promotion to T-6 grade as per Annexures A-13 to A-18 proceedings of the Committee. The Committee found that he was not fit for promotion ending in 2008. However, the Committee found him fit for promotion to T-6 grade with effect from 01.07.2009 as per Annexure A-18 proceedings. Accordingly, Annexure A-1 office order was issued.
9. Pursuant to Annexure A-2 representation, his case was considered and it was noticed that the applicant was assesssed erroneously by the new Score Card which came into force with effect from 01.01.2006. Therefore, it was decided by the 1st respondent to re-assess the performance of the applicant for promotion to T-6 grade in category III with effect from 01.07.2003. Accordingly, the performance of the applicant for the period from 01.07.1993 to 30.06.2003 was re-assessed by a duly constitued Assessment Committee. The Committee did not recommend the applicant for promotion to the T-6 grade with the observation that the applicant did not complete the 10 year period of service for considering him for re- assessment. We had occasion to go through Annexure R-1(b), the copy of the proceedings dated 16.12.2017.
2025.09.16 16:52:12 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0 9 O.A. No.180/00181/2020
10. The recommendation of the Assessment Committee was intimated to the applicant, which was produced as Annexure A-4 by the original applicant. He was also directed to submit the duly filled up assessment proforma for considering his period from 01.07.2003 to 30.06.2006. The performance of the applicant in the subsequent years for the years ending with 2004, 2005 & 2006 was reconsidered by the Assessment Committee. The Assessment Committee unanimously did not recommend for promotion to grade T-6 with an observation that the applicant did not complete the requisite period of 10 years of service for considering the assessment promotion as he was on leave with effect from 30.04.1995 to 30.08.1996. The CR for the said period was also not available. The proceedings of the Assessment Committee was produced as Annexures R-1(c), R-1(d) & R- 1(e). The recommendation of the Assessment Committee was approved by the 2nd respondent by Annexure A-8, which was communicated to the applicant along with Annexure A-7 office order, which is impugned in this Original Application.
11. On the above premise, it was contended that the Original Application was not sustainable. In this regard, Annexure R-1(a) is relevant. Annexure R-1(a) is dated 03.02.2000 by which modifications in the existing Technical 2025.09.16 16:52:12 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0 10 O.A. No.180/00181/2020 Service Rules of ICAR was carried out and notification was issued as Annexure R-1(a). It was inter alia provided that clause 2 (ii) of Annexue R- 1(a) provides as follows.
"...(ii) The provisions relating to Category barrier for assessment promotions from T-5 grade of Category II to T-6 grade of Cat.III has been revised as under:
(a) The technical personnel in T-5 grade (Rs.
6500-10500) and possessing the essential qualifications prescribed as hereinfurther under this order for Category III for direct recruitment, shall be eligible for assessment promotion to T-6 (Rs. 8000-13,500) grade after completing five years of service in T-5 grade, while
(b) The T-5 Technical Personnel who do not possess the essential qualifications as for direct recruitment prescribed hereinfurther under this order for Cat.III shall be eligible for assessment promotion to T-6 grade after completing 10 years of service in T-5 grade provided such technical personnel are possessing the qualifications prescribed under this order for direct recruitment to Category II (T-3). However, such Technical Personnel in T-5 grade who do not possess the qualifications prescribed under this order for direct recruitment to Category II (T-3) shall not be eligible for further assessment promotion to Category III of the Technical Services..."
12. The qualification referred to in Clause 2(ii) (a) relating to qualification for Category III for direct recruitment was provided in Clause 2 (iv) (c), which provided that "Master's degree in the relevant field or equivalent qualifications from a recognized university".
2025.09.16 16:52:12 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0 11 O.A. No.180/00181/2020
13. Evidently, for considering promotion from T-5 to T-6 as claimed by the applicant, he has to possess a Master's degree, which the applicant did not possess.
14. The Assessment Committee, which met on 16.12.2017, did not recommend the applicant for promotion to T-6 grade with the observation that the applicant did not complete the required period of 10 years service for considering him for assessment promotion as he was on leave for 16 months and the CR for the said leave period was also not available. The proceedings is produced as Annexure R-1(b). The recommendation of the Assessment Committee shows that it was found that the applicant was on leave for 16 months from 30.04.1995 to 30.08.1996 and hence had not completed the required period of 10 years for assessment as on 01.07.2003. The CR for the said leave period was also not available. Hence, the Committee unanimously held that he cannot be considered for consideration as on 01.07.2003.
15. According to the respondents, the performance of the applicant for the further periods of 2004, 2005 & 2006 was reconsidered by the duly constituted Assessment Committee held on 12.11.2018. The Committee did 2025.09.16 16:52:12 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0 12 O.A. No.180/00181/2020 not recommend for promotion to T-6 on the same premise as mentioned in Annexure R-1(d). This is evident from Annexures R-1(c), R-1(d) & R-1(e).
16. The specific contention of the applicant was that the required benchmark for recommending/ granting promotion from T-5 grade to T-6 grade was "good", which is equivalent to 40% marks. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that there was no need for re-assessment of performance during the period ending 2007 & 2008 as it was done as per the guidelines issued by the 2 nd respondent vide Annexure R-1(f) dated 26.12.2005 which came into effect from 01.01.2006. As per Annexure R- 1(f), applicant had to score 67% of marks for promotion to T-6 grade, but the applicant scored only 61% & 64% marks for the assessment periods from 01.07.1997 to 30.06.2007 and 01.07.1998 to 30.06.2008 respectively. According to Annexure A-18 proceedings of the Assessment Committee, the applicant was granted assessment promotion to the grade T-6 with effect from 01.07.2009 as he got 67% marks. Accordingly, Annexure A-1 office order dated 07.12.2011 was issued. The applicant retired from service on 31.07.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation.
2025.09.16 16:52:12 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0 13 O.A. No.180/00181/2020
17. On evaluation of the entire facts, it is clear that the applicant has approached this Tribunal based on wrong and assumed facts, the guidelines for promotion was wrongly understood by the applicant and it seems that he ignored Annexure R-1(a) as well as the communication produced as R-1(f).
18. Having considered this, the applicant is not entitled to any relief. The O.A fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Dated, this the 16th day of September, 2025) V. RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER v 2025.09.16 16:52:12 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0 14 O.A. No.180/00181/2020 List of Annexures in OA/181/2020 Annexure A1- True copy of the Office Order dated 7.12.2011 issued by st 1 respondent.
Annexure A2- True copy of the representation dated 23.11.2016 submitted by the applicant to the 2nd respondent. Annexure A3- True copy of the CMFRI letter dated 12.1.2017 issued by th 4 respondent.
Annexure A4- True copy of the letter dated 28.12.2017 issued by 4 th respondent.
Annexure A5- True copy of the letter dated 12.2.2018 by the applicant to the Scientist-in-charge, Visakhapatnam-3. Annexure A6- True copy of the representation dated 12.2.2018 submitted by the applicant to the 1st respondent. Annexure A7- True copy of the Office Order F.No.27(1)/2018-Estt. dated 17.6.2019 of the 4th respondent.
Annexure A8- True copy of the letter dated 7.6.2019 referred to in Annexure A-7 obtained by the applicant during December, 2019 by submitting application under RTI Act.
Annexure A9- True copy of the letter dated 22.8.2019 submitted by the applicant under RTI Act.
Annexure A10- True copy of the letter dated 16.9.2019, sent by the 4 th respondent to the applicant.
Annexure A11- True copy of the Proceedings of the Assessment Committee Meeting held on 27.1.2009.
Annexure A12- True copy of the proforma for evaluation for the period of Assessment from 1.7.1993 to 30.6.2003. Annexure A13- True copy of the proforma for evaluation for the period of Assessment from 1.7.1994 to 30.6.2004. Annexure A14- True copy of the proforma for evaluation for the period of Assessment from 1.7.1995 to 30.6.2005. Annexure A15- True copy of the proforma for evaluation for the period of Assessment from 1.7.1996 to 30.6.2006. Annexure A16- True copy of the proforma for evaluation for the period of Assessment from 1.7.1997 to 30.6.2007. Annexure A17- True copy of the proforma for evaluation for the period of Assessment from 1.7.1998 to 30.6.2008. Annexure A18- True copy of the proforma for evaluation for the period of Assessment from 1.7.2008 to 30.6.2009.
2025.09.16 16:52:12 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0 15 O.A. No.180/00181/2020 Annexure A19- True copy of the Guideline dated 27.3.2001 issued by the Government of India, Department of Agricultural Research & Education, Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi. Annexure A20- True copy of the Office Memorandum dated 8.2.2002 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi dated 8.2.2002.
Annexure A21- True copy of the Council's letter F.No.18(1)/2004-Estt.IV dated 11.6.2010.
Annexure A22- True copy of the council's letter dated 3.2.2000 referred to in Annexure A-1.
Annexure A23- True copy of the order dated 15.05.2012 in O.A.No.663 and 666/2011 on the file of this Tribunal. Annexure A24- True copy of the judgment dated 29.08.2014 in O.P. (CAT) No.1489/2013 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam.
Annexure A25- True copy of the Memorandum dated 6.3.1997, issued regularizing applicant's absence from duty. Annexure R1(a)- True copy of the letter No.18(1)/97-Estt.I dated 03.02.2000.
Annexure R1(b)- A true copy of the Annual Performance Appraisal reports for the period 01.07.1993 to 30.06.2003 dated 16.12.2017. Annexure R1(c)- A true copy of the Annual Performance Appraisal reports for the period of 01.07.1994 to 30.06.2004 dated 12.11.2018. Annexure R1(d)- A true copy of the Annual Performance Appraisal reports for the period of 01.07.1995 to 30.06.2005 dated 12.11.2018. Annexure R1(e)- A true copy of the Annual Performance Appraisal reports for the period of 01.07.1996 to 30.06.2006 dated 12.11.2018. Annexure R1(f)- A true copy of letter F.No. 18(1)/2004-Estt.IV dated 26.12.2005.
2025.09.16 16:52:12 VISHAL +05'30' 2024.3.0