Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Krushna Chandra Rout vs Icar on 24 October, 2024
1 O.A.No. 260/00092 of 2007
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00092 of 2007
Reserved on 23.10.2024 Pronounced on 24.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
1. Krushna Chandra Rout, aged about 70 years, son of
Late Mani Rout, At-Keshpur, P.O. CRRI, Cuttack-6, P.S.
Chauliaganj, Town/ Dist. Cuttack.
2. Harish Chandra Behera, aged about 68 years, son of
Late Brajabandhu Behera, At-Bhdimul, P.O.-CRRI,
Cuttack-6.
3. Kailash Ch. Mohapatra, aged about 67 years, son of
Late Agani Chandra Mohapatra, At-Routrapur, P.O.-
Kalapada, Via-Bentkar, Dist. Cuttack.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Secretary, Indian Council of Agricultural Research
(ICAR), Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krushi
Bhawan, New Delhi, represented through its Director
General.
3. Director, Central Rice Research Bidyadharpur,
Cuttack.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. N.R.Routray, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. S.B.Jena, Counsel
2 O.A.No. 260/00092 of 2007
O R D E R
SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J):
The final order dated 21.01.2009 of this Tribunal passed in this case was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa by the three Applicants in W.P ( C) No. 3715 of 2009. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, Applicants 2 & 3 died. The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa vide order dated 25.04.2019 quashed the final order of this Tribunal dated 21.01.2009 and remitted the matter back to this Bench for hearing and final disposal afresh in so far as Applicant No.1 is concerned. However, in subsequent order dated 31.03.2023 in I.A. No. 8553 of 2019 it was clarified by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa that Applicant Nos. 2&3 stand substituted by their respective LRs. Accordingly, this matter is restored to file and learned counsel for both sides were heard. Perused the records.
2. For the sake of convenience, Applicant No.1 and LRs of Applicant Nos. 2 & 3 will be dealt into as 'Applicants'.
3. According to learned counsel for the Applicants, Applicants were appointed as Field Assistant on 26.06.1959. While continuing as such, 3 O.A.No. 260/00092 of 2007 the Organization was taken over by ICAR. In order to enable the members of Technical Services to give their best to the Organization, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) introduced new personnel policies for the Technical Services from 1.10.1975. The Applicants were initially inducted to T-1 of Category-I in the scale of pay of Rs. 260-430/-. Thereafter, they were promoted to Senior Field Assistant with effect from 01.04.1976 in the pay scale of Rs. 380-560/-. When the Technical Service Rules (TSR) came into force on 06.03.1978, they were working as Senior Field Assistant wherein the essential qualification for category-II was "three years Diploma/Bachelor Degree in relevant field" or "three years experience in the relevant field for Diploma holders". On 27.1.1979, the essential qualification for different categories had undergone change. For category-II in respect of Field/Farm Technician alternative qualification of matriculation with 10 years experience in the relevant field was made applicable in respect of the existing employees as on 01.01.1977. On 28.02.1980, an order was issued by ICAR clarifying that said qualification will be applicable with effect from 01.01.1975. On 01.07.1982, the Applicants having not been fitted in Category-II were promoted to T-I-3 in 4 O.A.No. 260/00092 of 2007 Category-I in the scale of pay of Rs. 425-700/-. On 01.01.1995, they were promoted/brought over to T-II-3 in the scale of pay of Rs. 425- 700/-. On 24.6.1999, the Respondent 3 (ICAR) intimated the Respondent No.4 (CRRI) to grant the benefits of the aforesaid provision to the deserving persons. Since the Applicants were not fitted in T-II-3 Category with effect from 01.01.1975, they filed O.A. No. 581 of 2000 before this Bench which was dismissed on 22.07.2004, by referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director CRRI-v- K.M. Das and others, reported in 1994 Suppl.(3) SCC 595. The said order of this Bench was challenged in W.P.(C) No.10720 of 2004 before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa which was disposed of on 05.01.2006 directing the Respondents to consider their cases in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ICAR and others -v- Bibhuti Bhusan Nayak and others in Civil Appeal No.6673 of 1997 as well as the circular issued in this regard. On 19.04.2006, Respondent No.4 (CRRI) issued memo to the Applicants rejecting their claim without taking into consideration the observations made in W.P.(C) No.10720 of 2004. Therefore, Applicants again approached this Bench. This Bench vide common order dated 5 O.A.No. 260/00092 of 2007 21.01.2009, dismissed the O.A. Nos. 92 and 213 of 2007 rejecting their claim by holding that benefits allowed to some other officials on a wrong interpretation of legal position cannot be taken as a precedent for the purpose of getting erroneous benefit to which the applicants were not entitled to at all. Therefore, the Applicants approached before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and according to learned counsel for the Applicants, as per the amended rules providing alternative criterion of eligibility of promotion on due date i.e. 01.01.1975, since Applicants completed ten years they entitled to the relief claimed in this OA. The relief sought by the Applicants in this OA is as under:
".....to quash the Memorandum dated 19.04.2006 under Annexure-7 and direct the respondents particularly respondent nos. 2&3 to place the applicants in T-II-3 in the time scale of Rs. 425-700/- with effect from 1.10.1975 with asll consequential service benefits including promotion, arrear salary etc in terms of the order/direction in the case of B.B.Nayak in Civil Appeal No. 6673 of 1997 disposed of on 26.09.1997 within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Tribunal."
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, placing reliance on the stand taken in the counter has submitted that since induction of Technical Service Rules, the entire categories of employees were categorized in three categories as per 6 O.A.No. 260/00092 of 2007 Appendix I of Technical Service rules of Technical posts and employees who were getting pay scale of Rs. 425-700/- were entitled to be fitted in category II, T II 3; whereas, applicant no.1 was in the scale of Rs. 330- 560/- at the time of induction of the TS Rules in the Institute. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court turned down the claim of one Shri Khetra Mohan Das in Civil Appeal No. 4729/91 and in subsequent Civil Appeal No. 6673/1997 filed by Shri Bibhuti Bhusan Nayak the Hon'ble Apex Court held that employees who have been appointed in Grade T-II-3 of category II in pay scale of Rs. 425-700/- alone are entitled for pay scale of Rs. 550-900/-. It is also submitted that question of alternative qualification can only be considered as per the ICAR Letter No. 7 (10)/78-Per.III dated 27.01.1979 and letter No. 7(42)/79- Per.III dated 28.02.1980 clarified in subsequent council's letter No. F.7 (11)/83-Per.III dated 22.08.1984. It is the specific case of the Respondents that since Shri Bibhuti Bhusan Nayak filed a representation to consider his case and because of pendency of some Contempt Petition before this Tribunal some of the officers were given the benefit by wrongly applying the law interpreted by Hon'ble Apex Court and that cannot be the basis for allowing the claim of the 7 O.A.No. 260/00092 of 2007 Applicants. In stating so, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents has submitted that this OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.
5. We have considered to the arguments advanced by the parties. It may be recorded that TS Rules came into effect from 01.10.1975. In paragraph 3.1, the Technical Services were grouped into three categories with different pay scales. At that relevant time, the applicants were in pay scale of Rs. 330-560/-. In paragraph 5.1 of the said Rules it has been provided as under:
"The existing permanent and temporary employees appointed through regularly constituted DPC/'Selection Committees will be fitted into grades specified in para 3.1 on point to point basis without any further screening irrespective of their qualifications. However, persons holding the positions in the merged grade of Rs. 425- 700/- and possessing qualifications prescribed for Category II, will be fitted in grade T-II-3 (Rs. 425-700/-)."
6. Paragraph 2 of Council's Letter No. F.7 (11)/83-Per.III dated 22nd August, 1984 provides as under:
"The whole matter has been examined in the Council and it is clarified that the alternative qualifications circulated vide Council's letter referred to above are applicable to the council's employees for purpose of promotion only against 20% vacancies reserved for departmental promotion. These qualifications will not 8 O.A.No. 260/00092 of 2007 therefore, be applicable to Council's employees when they apply for technical posts against 80% quota reserved for direct recruitment as it is not considered desirable to have two sets of qualifications for direct recruitment i.e. one for the Indian Council for Agricultural research employees and other for the outsiders."
7. Further, the extract of Council's clarification letter No. 14 (3)/.94- Estt.IV dated 8.8.96 regarding applicability of relaxed qualification was again reproduced after removal of category bar between Category I and Category II stating that Council employees in service as on 1.1.1977 and possessing alternative qualifications in terms of ICAR Letter No. 7(1)/78-Per.III dated 27.1.1979 and No. 14 (8)/94-E-IV dated 6.4.1994 will also be eligible for category jump from Category I to Category II w.e.f. 1.1.1995 in terms of Council's circular of even number dated 1.2.1995.
8. Regarding the case of Sri Bibhuti Bhusan Nayak (B.B. Nayak) relied upon by the applicants, it may be stated that Sri B.B.Nayak filed OA No. 182/91, which was allowed with direction that he be allowed the scale of Rs. 425-600 w.e.f. 1.1.1973 and scale of Rs. 550-900/- w.e.f. 1.10.1975. ICAR appealed by filing SLP before Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6673 of 1997 in the case of Indian Council for 9 O.A.No. 260/00092 of 2007 Agricultural Research & Anr. -vs- Bibhuti Bhushan Nayak, in which it was held as under:-
"The respondents were employed as Computers with the Central Rice Research Institute which is an Institute under the control of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The grievance of the respondents was that while Senior Computers were placed in the pay scale of Rs.425-600/- with effect from January 1, 1973 they were placed in a lower pay scale of Rs.300-560/-. They were claiming the pay scale of Rs.450-600/- with effect from January 1, 1973. They were also seeking the higher pay scale of Rs.550-900 with effect from October 1, 1975. They filed a petition [OA No. 182 of 1991] seeking the said relief before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench [hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal']. The said petition has been decided by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated June 23, 1994. The Tribunal, while allowing the said application, has held :
'What is crystal clear is that complete jurisdiction exists for accepting the prayer of the applicants, S/Shri Bibhuti Bhushan Nayak, Madan Mohan Das and Akhaya Kumar Mishra be placed in the pay scale of Rs.425- 600/- with effect from 1.1.1973 or from the actual date of their respective appointment to the post of Computers Further they should be placed in category I- T(IV) in the scale of Rs.550-900/- with effect from 1.10.1975 or from the date of their respective appointment.' The words 'category T-I(IV)' should be read as 'Category T-II(IV)' in these observations because there is no category T-I(IV) and the pay scale of Rs.550-900/- was given for category II-T(IV).
Shri Sikh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, states that the appellants do not question the 10 O.A.No. 260/00092 of 2007 first direction given by the Tribunal that the respondents be given the pay scale of Rs.425-600/- with effect from January 1, 1973 or from the actual date of their appointment on the post of Computers. He assails the second direction that the respondents should be placed in category II-T(IV) in the pay scale of Rs.550-900/- with effect from October 1, 1975 from the date of their respective appointment. The submission is that the categorisation of the various services was done under the Technical Services Rules of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research which came into force with effect from October 1, 1975. The learned counsel has invited our attention to Rule 5.1 of the said Rules which provides for initial adjustment for earlier employees and submits that in view of the said rule on October 1, 1975 the respondents could only be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.425-600, either in category I-T(III) or in category II-T depending upon their qualifications and that the next scale of Rs.550-900/- falling in category II-T(IV) could be given to them only by way of promotion after the initial fitment had been made with effect from October 1, 1975.
The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Director, Central Rice Research Institution, Cuttack & Anr. -vs- Khetra Mohan Das, 1994 (Suppl.(3) SCC 595, wherein it has been laid down:
'Viewed from any angle it is clear that when these rules came into force only a person in Grade T-I-3 of category I [pay scale - Rs.425-700/-] would be entitled to be inducted in Grade T-II-3 of category II provided he possessed the necessary qualifications prescribed for category II. The promotion to category II in the case of the respondent can be only as per Rule 7.2 and not by way of induction as claimed by the respondent.'[P.600] In view of the said decision of this Court the direction given by the Tribunal that the respondents be placed in category II-T(IV) in the pay scale of Rs.550- 11 O.A.No. 260/00092 of 2007 900/- with effect from October 1, 1975 cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. The respondents will, however, entitled to be considered for promotion in the said category II-T(IV) in the pay scale of Rs.550-900/- after fitment in the pay scale of Rs.425-600/- with effect from October 1, 1975 under the Rules of 1975.' The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the direction given by the Tribunal that the respondents be placed in category II-T(IV) in the pay scale of Rs.550- 900/- with effect from October 1, 1975 or from the date of their respective appointment, is set aside. No order as to costs."
9. From the above, it is clear that the case of Sri B.B. Nayak is different factually, since his claim was for the pay scale of Rs. 425- 600/- w.e.f. 1.10.1973 (it should be Rs. 425-700/-) at par with Senior Computers as he was placed at lower pay scale. In that case, the ICAR accepted the fitment of pay of Sri Nayak in pay scale of Rs. 425-700/- as Computer w.e.f. 1.10.1973 as per the order of the Tribunal as the ICAR's counsel did not object to that part of the Tribunal's order before Hon'ble Apex Court as observed in the judgment extracted above. The other direction for fitment in pay scale of Rs. 550-900/- was challenged and the said direction of the Tribunal was set aside by Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned counsel for the applicant in the present OA before us had submitted that the applicant wants the same benefit of Rs. 425- 700/- w.e.f. 1.10.1975 which was allowed to Sri B.B.Nayak. But the 12 O.A.No. 260/00092 of 2007 present applicant's pay scale as on 1.10.1975 was not at Rs.425-700/- like the case of Sri B.B.Nayak. Hence, it is held that the case of Applicants is not at par with the case of Shri Nayak and hence, they are not entitled to the benefit as claimed by them in this OA.
10. This Tribunal also considered the case of applicants basing on amended rules and alternative criterion of eligibly of promotion on due date i.e. 01.01.1975, when applicants completed ten years because the rules were amended in 1979 with retrospective effect. We find that similar question came up for consideration before this Tribunal in OA No. 213 of 2007 filed by similarly situated employee styled Natabar Mohanty vs Indian Council of Agricultural and, after discussing all pros and cons of the matter, this Tribunal dismissed the OA on 2 nd December, 2019, an excerpt from it reads as under:
"19. With regard to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court dated 25.4.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 10048/2009 (enclosure 8 of the written submission of the applicant), this Tribunal was directed to consider the case of the applicant as per his factual matrix on the basis of the amended rules and eligibility for promotion. As discussed earlier, TSR-5.1 of the amended rule, which has also been cited by the applicant in the written note of submissions, that has been extracted in paragraph 4 of this order which states as under :13 O.A.No. 260/00092 of 2007
'The existing permanent and temporary employees appointed through regularly constituted DPC/Selection Committee will be fitted into the grades specified in para 3.1 on point to point basis without any further screening irrespective of their qualifications. However, persons holding positions in the merged grade of Rs.425-700 and possessing qualifications prescribed for Category II, will be fitted in grade T-II- 3(Rs.425-700)'.
It is seen from above that an employee will be eligible for the fitment in the Grade T-II-3 in the pay scale of Rs.425-700/- if he is already in the merged pay scale of Rs.425-700/- in grade T-I-3. For employees not in pay scale of Rs.425- 700/- in T-I-3 grade as on 1.10.1975, the fitment has to be done after selection by the DPC/Selection Committee with effect from 1.10.1975 to the grade of T-I- 3 to enable his fitment in the scale of Rs.425-700/- in grade of T-II-3. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant has been promoted to the grade with pay scale of Rs.425- 700/- by the DPC/Selection Committee as on 1.10.1975. As mentioned in the judgment dated 25.4.2019 of the Hon'ble High Court, the applicant was promoted to the grade T-I-3 in Category I in the pay scale of Rs.425-700/- on 1.7.1982. Hence, as on 1.10.1975, he was not drawing this pay in T-I-3 grade, for which he would not be entitled for automatic fitment for the grade T-II-3 with pay scale of Rs.425-700/- as per TSR-5.1 of the amended rule for Technical Services Rules under ICAR. No rule or instruction has been cited by the applicant to show that on promotion to the grade of T-I-3 with pay scale of RS.425-700/- w.e.f. 1.7.1982, he was entitled to be automatically upgraded to higher grade of T-II- 3 in the pay scale of Rs.425-700/-.
20. In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that in the OA, the claim of the applicant when examined in accordance with the rules applicable and the factual circumstances of the case as furnished in the pleadings of the parties on record, has no merit. The OA is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs."14 O.A.No. 260/00092 of 2007
11. In view of the discussions made above, we find no merit in this OA which is accordingly dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.) RK/PS