Karnataka High Court
G S Srinivasa Rao Phadnis vs The Union Of India on 13 March, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 2707
Bench: Alok Aradhe, M.Nagaprasanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
W.P. NO.46375 OF 2013 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
G.S. SRINIVASA RAO PHADNIS
S/O (LATE) G.S. GOVINDA RAO PHADNIS
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR CARTOGRAPHIC ASSISTANT
SOIL & LAND USE SURVEY OF INDIA
S.NO.207, KODIGEHALLI, VIDYARANYAPURA POST
BANGALORE 560097
R/AT. NO.144/8, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND BLOCK
BALAJI ROAD, R.T. NAGAR, BANGALORE 560028.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.R. HOLLA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
& CO-OPERATION SOIL AND LAND
USE SURVEY OF INDIA
KRISHI BAHVAN, NEW DELHI.
2. THE CHIEF SOIL SURVEY OFFICER
SOIL AND LAND USE SURVEY OF INDIA
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
IARI BUILDING, PUSA CAMPUS
NEW DELHI 110012.
2
3. THE SOIL SURVEY OFFICER
SOIL AND LAND USE SURVEY OF INDIA
S.NO.207, KODIGEHALLI, VIDYARANYAPURA POST
VIRUPAKASHAPURA, BANGALORE 560097.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KUMAR M.N. CGC FOR R1 TO R3)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RELEVANT RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS. QUASH THE
ORDER DT:2.8.13, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, IN OA
NO.276/12, VIDE ANN-A, WHILE ALLOWING THE OA NO.276/12
PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Mr.A.R.Holla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Kumar M.N., learned Central Government Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 20.08.2013 passed by the 3 Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short), by which the claim of the petitioner to extend the benefit of second financial upgradation to him on completion of 24 years of services with effect from 21.07.2004 under the ACP scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme' for short) has bee dismissed.
2. Facts leading to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of draughtsman on 21.07.1980 and had obtained National Trade Certificate, which was issued by a National Council for Training in Vocational Trades in Draughtsman Mechanical. The post of the petitioner later on was re-designated as Junior Cartographic Assistant with effect from after completion of five years of service. The petitioner on completion of 12 years of regular service and upon introduction of the scheme was granted first financial upgradation in the pay scale of Rs.5,500-9,000/- with effect from 09.08.1989. The 4 petitioner completed 24 years of service as on 21.07.2004 and had become eligible for second financial upgradation to the next hierarchy in his post. Thus, the petitioner was entitled to pay scale of Rs.6,500- Rs.10,500/- under the scheme. The petitioner submitted a representation with regard to his scheme on 22.02.2011 for second financial upgradation on completion of 24 years, which was rejected by an order dated 15.03.2011. The petitioner thereupon approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal by impugned order dated 02.08.2013 dismissed the original application preferred by the petitioner. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the scheme, there is no requirement of having a Master degree in geography in order to claim a benefit of second financial upgradation of pay. It is further submitted that the aforesaid benefit accrues to an employee on completion of 24 years of service. 5 Since, the petitioner had completed 24 years of service on 21.07.2004; therefore, he had become eligible for grant of second financial upgradation. It is also submitted that similarly situate employee viz., K.R.Khapekar had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai and the application preferred by the aforesaid employee was allowed by an order dated 07.05.2010 on the strength of an order passed by a division bench of this Court. It is further submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment dated 17.12.2015 passed in W.P.No.49233/12.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that first financial upgradation was given to the petitioner on 09.08.1999 and second and third financial upgradation were to be given to the petitioner under the Modified scheme. While inviting the attention of this court to the objections filed on behalf of the respondent before the Tribunal, it is submitted that 6 the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefit of second financial upgradation as he does not have the requisite qualification. In this connection, our attention has also been invited to the clarification to doubt 53 dated 18.07.2001 issued with regard to the scheme, which provides that in terms of condition No.6 of Annexure-I to Department of Personnel and Training O.M dated 09.08.1999 only those employees who fulfill the promotional norm are considered under the scheme. Since, the petitioner did not have the post graduate degree in geography, therefore, the benefit has rightly been denied to him. It is further submitted that the decision rendered by a division bench of this Court dated 17.12.2015 does not deal with the situation where the recruitment Rules provided for a clarification for grant of second financial upgradation. Therefore, the aforesaid decision has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case.
7
5. We have considered the submissions made on both the sides and have perused the record. Admittedly, in the scheme, there is no stipulation that only an employee who has requisite qualification i.e., Master Degree in geography alone is entitled to all financial upgradations. From perusal of the scheme, it is evident that the scheme envisages mere placement in the higher pay scale / grant of financial benefit (through financial upgradation) only to the Government servant concerned on personal basis and shall therefore, neither amount to functional /regular promotion nor would require creation of the new post for the purpose. Clause 6 of the scheme is reproduced below for the facility of reference.
6. Fulfillment of normal promotion norms (benchmark, departmental examination, seniority-cum-fitness in the case of Group 'D' employees, etc.) for grant of financial upgradtations, performance of such duties as are entrusted to the employees together with 8 retention of old designations, financial upgradations as personal to the incumbent for the stated purposes and restriction of the ACP scheme for financial and certain other benefits (House Building Advance, allotment of Government accommodation, advances, etc.) only without conferring any privileges related to higher status (e.g., invitation to ceremonial functions, deputation to higher posts, etc.) shall be ensured for grant of benefits under the ACP scheme.
6. The relevant extract of clarification with regard to ACP scheme dated 18.07.2001 is reproduced below, which reads as under:
Doubt 53 - If for promotion on regular basis, an employee has to possess a higher additional qualification, will it be necessary to insist on possession of these qualifications even while considering grant of financial upgradation under the ACPS?
Clarification: - In terms of Condition No.6 of Annexure-I to DoP&T, O.M., dated 9 09.08.1999, only those employees who fulfill all promotional norms are eligible to be considered for benefit under ACPS.
Therefore, various stipulations and conditions specified in the Recruitment Rules for promotion to the next higher grade, including the higher/additional educational qualification, if prescribed, would need to be met even for consideration under ACPS.
7. Thus, from perusal of Clause (6) of the scheme, it is evident that it no where refers to the qualification as eligibility criteria for grant of second financial upgradation. Therefore, the clarification has been issued on misinterpretation of Clause (6) of the scheme dated 09.08.1999. A division bench of this court in the judgment passed in W.P.No.49233/2012 has held that if the petitioner has been granted the benefit of first financial upgradation, he cannot be denied the benefit of second financial upgradation. In the instant case, the requirement of qualification has been prescribed in the Recruitment Rules and not under the 10 scheme under Recruitment Rules. The requirement of qualification of having Master Degree in geography subject has been provided for the purposes of claiming regular permission and not for the purposes of grant of benefit of financial upgradation under the scheme. It is also pertinent to mention here that similar issue with regard to eligibility with regard to grant of second financial upgrdation under ACP was allowed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.539/2003 by order dated 24.06.2003, which was confirmed by a division bench of this court by order dated 12.08.2004 passed in W.P.No.29493/2004.
In view of the preceding analysis, it is evident that it is not necessary for the employees who possess the qualification prescribed under the recruitment Rules, which is a sine qua non for claiming permission to claim the benefit of second financial upgradation under the scheme. The petitioner being eligible for the aforesaid benefit, on completion of 24 years of service and the 11 action of respondents in depriving the petitioner of the aforesaid benefit cannot be termed as arbitrary and irrational. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the Tribunal. The impugned order suffers from the error apparent on the face of the record. It is accordingly quashed. The petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of second financial upgradtion with effect from 21.07.2004. The respondents are directed to extend the aforesaid benefit to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today along with consequential benefits.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE ss