Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
N V Nageswara Rao vs M/O Agriculture on 10 November, 2021
OA No.609/2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH :: AT HYDERABAD
OA/020/00609/2015
Date of CAV : 03.11.2021
Date of Pronouncement:10.11.2021
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judl. Member
Hon'ble Mr.B.V.Sudhakar, Admn. Member
N.V. Nageswara Rao, S/o. N.V. Ratnam,
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Sr. Technician,
O/o. The Director (Sr) FM TTI,
Ministry of Agriculture & Cooperation,
Tractor Nagar, Garladinee, Dist: Ananthapur.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. K. Phani Raju)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Rep. by Secretary,
Ministry of Agriculture,
Dept. of Agriculture & Cooperation,
Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Director (SR),
Farm Machinery Training & Testing Institute,
Tractor Nagar, P.O. Garladinee, Dist: Ananthapur - 515731.
....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. V. Vinod Kumar, Sr. CGSC)
---
Page 1 of 8
OA No.609/2015
ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr. B.V.Sudhakar, Admin. Member) Through Video Conferencing:
2. The OA is filed in regard to re-designating the post of Training Assistant as Technical Assistant and merger of Technician post with Electrician Grade-I post leading to issue of common seniority list.
3. Brief facts are that the applicant joined the respondents organization as Mate-I in 1994 and rose to the rank of Technician in 2007 with grade pay of Rs.2400. Respondents undertook cadre restructuring on 17.9.2013 by re-designating the post of Training Assistant (for short TA) with grade pay of Rs.2800 as Technical Assistant and the feeder post of Technician (Grade Pay of Rs.2400/-) was clubbed with Electrician Grade-I post by re-
designating it as Senior Technician. Thereafter, Recruitment Rules were issued on 18.12.2014 (for short RR-2014) and the common seniority list of Electrician & Technician Grade-I was issued on 1.12.2014. Applicant represented on several occasions explaining the injustice caused to him due to restructuring, but of no avail and hence the OA.
4. The contentions of the applicant are that without notifying the RR- 2014, the posts were re-designated and the common seniority list involving unrelated cadres was issued. Even the RRs were issued with many lacunae. The posts of Technician and Electrician Gr.I involve jobs which are diametrically opposite excepting for the common grade pay of Rs.2400. The promotional channels are also separate and hence clubbing of these two posts is not only irregular but also reflects non application of mind. Placing the Electricians as seniors over the Technicians in the common seniority list Page 2 of 8 OA No.609/2015 issued on 1.12.2014 is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the constitution. Restructuring is detrimental to the career of the applicant since it has altered his service conditions. Due to merger, the seniority of the applicant has slipped from Sl. No.1 in 2013 to Sl. No. 2 as per the seniority list issued on 1.12.2014. Respondents are likely to issue an All India Seniority list which would mar his promotion as Technical Assistant. Objections raised were not responded to before finalizing the merged seniority list.
5. Respondents in their reply statement state that as per DOPT advise dated 10.02.2011, merger of technical and non-technical cadres carrying same scale of pay and similar duties was done to facilitate consolidation of small and isolated cadres as well as reduce multiple designations along with enhancement of promotional opportunities. Restructuring augmented exposure to modern technology to the employees which hitherto was confined to the institute in which they were working. Employees were assured that their financial interests would be taken care of by Modified Assured Career Progression scheme. The employees would be allotted the work in which they have expertise and not otherwise. The common seniority list was issued on 18.6.2015 in the light of the RR-2014 wherein application of the educational qualification prescribed for the Direct Recruits was reviewed. Restructuring has been a regular process.
6. Heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings on record.
7. I. The dispute is in regard to restructuring of cadres in the respondents' organization. The applicant is working as Technician in the grade pay of Rs.2400 and is due to be promoted as Technical Assistant (Training Assistant in the pre-revised cadre) with grade pay of Rs.2800. Page 3 of 8 OA No.609/2015 However, respondents have undertaken cadre restructuring by merging of Electrician Grade-I and Technician grade to create Sr. Technician Post with same grade pay of Rs.2400 and issued a common seniority list, thereby the seniority of the applicant has been adversely affected. Respondents, per contra, state that the small and isolated cadres were merged to increase the promotional opportunities, reduce multiple designations, and enhance work exposure etc. II. As is seen from the facts, respondents have undertaken restructuring of the cadres in Organizational interests in order to club small and isolated cadres to improve promotional opportunities and enhance work efficiency. The Tribunal has very little scope to interfere in such matters since restructuring is a policy matter. Besides, even after the merger of the cadres, the respondents have made it clear that the employees would be assigned the work in which they have expertise. We agree with the contention and therefore, merger of cadres with same grade pay, but with different skill sets can be no ground to take objection to. It requires no reiteration that any organization would direct the employee to work in the domain in which he has skill and not otherwise as for example, asking an Electrician to work as an Technician and vice versa, as claimed by the applicant.
III. Restructuring is a macro level exercise wherein every one cannot be expected to gain. There could be some difficulties experienced in respect of a microscopic minority as in the case of the applicant whose seniority has slided due to merger of cadres. However, organizational interests gain priority over individual interests and restructuring is a policy Page 4 of 8 OA No.609/2015 initiative of the Management wherein the Tribunal, as per settled law, has very little room to interfere unless it is malafide. We find no malafide in framing of the Policy in question by the respondents. A similar issue was adjudicated by the Tribunal in OA 356/2015 and dismissed on 06.04.2021 by observing as under:
"7 (i). The dispute is about the restructuring of both Technical and non- Technical cadres in the Respondents organization. The Respondents have undertaken cadre restructuring based on DoPT Memo dated 10.02.2011, since cadre restructuring will widen the scope of promotions in the Organization. It is possible that a large number of employees may get the benefit and some may have difficulty in getting the promotions as per their expectations. Nevertheless the organization will benefit in the process, since it will usher in system efficiency and enhance promotional opportunities to many. This aspect is not only to be understood by the Organization's management but also by the employees in the Respondent's organization as well.
(ii) Along with the cadre restructuring, Respondents revised the Recruitment Rules after consulting UPSC / DoPT and have been approved by the Ministry. Revised Recruitment Rules specify higher qualification for the post of Technical Assistant which is the next higher post to Senior Technician. The latest Recruitment Rules call for an Engineering Degree or a Diploma in Engineering. Earlier Recruitment Rules have not specified this qualification. The applicant is aggrieved that these changed education qualification would affect his promotional opportunities. In the rejoinder he states that it will be difficult to acquire the higher educational qualifications and therefore his career would be effected adversely. The Respondents submit that, to cope up with the advanced procedures and to adopt new technology, there has to be an increase in the educational qualifications so that the employees would be better equipped to discharge the duties that they are called upon to discharge. We agree and hence the need for Higher Educational Qualifications cannot be questioned.
iii. Respondents have also made it clear that the merger of non-Technical cadres have also been undertaken along with Technical posts with details in the reply statement. The applicant has submitted that different trades with dissimilar functionalities like Carpenter, Electrician and Mechanic have been grouped together, which is improper. He has cited the case of Railways where JE (Civil), JE (Mechanical) and JE (Electrical) groups were separately formed. However the applicant should be aware that, the Ministry of Defence, has clubbed dissimilar trades like Carpenter, Electrician, etc to augment promotional opportunities. In a small cadre the opportunities to rise in the career is limited and therefore merger of small cadres is done in the interest of the employees. For eg. the details given for the Anantapur Unit of the respondents organization, as under, post and pre cadre restructuring, will affirm the above observation.
Name(s) & No. of posts Pay Revised Sanctioned Strength Total
at SRFMTTI, Anantapur Scale Designatio stren
before merger/ clubbing/ n in the gth in
re-designation new RRs CRFM NRFM SRF NERF DA the
TTI TTI MTTI, MTTI, C. new
Assam Hqr
RRs
Agricultural 15 PB-2 GP Agricultur 5 4 3 2 1 15
Engineer (common Rs.4600 al
to all Engineer
FMTTIs)
Senior 2 PB-2 GP Senior 9 6 2 1 0 18
Page 5 of 8
OA No.609/2015
Technical Rs.4200 Technical
Assistant Assistant
Training 5 PB-1 Technical 6 5 5 3 0 19
Assistant GP Assistant
Rs.2800
Technician 5 PB-1 GP Senior 21 15 6 5 0 47
Rs.2400 Technician
As can be seen from the table, the number of posts in the cadres higher to the Sr. Technician post are increased and obviously the promotional opportunities get amplified. The new Recruitment Rules were notified on 16.12.2014 to bring in efficacy in the organization. Organizational interests reign supreme over individual interests. The entire pleading in the OA is about the applicant's grievance ignoring the windfall gains to the organization and to a large number of other employees due to cadre restructuring.
iv. In fact the challenge mounted by the applicant in regard to the cadre restructuring is a policy matter wherein which the Tribunal has a narrow scope to intervene as observed by the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court in Prakash Chandra vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 10 October, 2019 in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 467 of 2019 by relying on a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as under :
9. Even otherwise, what the petitioner seeks is for a mandamus to be issued to the State Government to amend the 2007 Rules. While the High Court, undoubtedly, has the power to strike down Rules, if they fall foul of Part-III of the Constitution of India, that would not justify the High Court taking upon itself the task of amending Rule 7 of the 2007 Rules or to issue a mandamus to the State Government to do so. Legislative power is exercised by the legislature directly or, subject to certain conditions, may be exercised by some other authority on such a power being delegated to them. But exercise of that power, whether by the legislature or by its delegate, is an exercise of a legislative power. The fact that the power was delegated to the executive does not convert that power into an executive or administrative power. No court can issue a mandate to a legislature to enact a particular law. Similarly no court can direct a subordinate legislative body to enact or not to enact a law which it may be competent to enact. (Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India: AIR 1990 SC 334; State of J&K v. A.R. Zakki & others: AIR 1992 SCC 1546; State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Gopalakrishna Murthi and Ors: AIR 1976 SC 123; Mangalam Organics Ltd. vs. Union of India: (2017) 7 SCC 221 and Narinder Chand Hem Raj v. Lt.
Governor, Administrator, Union Territory Himachal Pradesh: AIR 1971 SC 2399; Dhananjay Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & others: Full Bench judgment in Writ Petition (S/B) No.45 of 2014 dated 21.05.2019).
10. While it has the power to strike down a law on the ground of want of authority, this Court would not sit in appeal over the policy of the State Legislature in enacting a law. [Rusom Cavasiee Cooper v. Union of India: (1970) 1 SCC 248). Just as it cannot direct a legislature to enact a particular law, (Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India: AIR 1990 SC 334), the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct the Executive to exercise power by way of subordinate Legislation, pursuant to the power delegated by the Legislature to enact a law, in a particular manner. (Indian Soaps and Toiletries Makers Association vs. Ozair Husain and Ors: (2013) 3 SCC 641; Dhananjay Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & others: Full Bench judgment in Writ Petition (S/B) No.45 of 2014 dated 21.05.2019).
11. It is not within the domain of the Court to legislate. The Courts interpret the law, and have the jurisdiction to declare the law unconstitutional. But, the courts are not to plunge into policy making by adding something to the policy by issuing a writ of mandamus. (Census Commissioner and Ors. v. R. Krishnamurthy: (2015) 2 SCC 796 and Mangalam Organics Ltd. vs. Union of India: (2017) 7 SCC 221). A writ of Mandamus cannot be issued to the Legislature to enact a particular law, or to the Rule making authority to make rules in a particular manner or even to the Government to frame a policy. (Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India: AIR 1990 SC 334; State of J&K v. A.R. Zakki & others: AIR 1992 SCC 1546; State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Gopalakrishna Murthi and Ors: AIR 1976 SC 123; Mangalam Page 6 of 8 OA No.609/2015 Organics Ltd. vs. Union of India: (2017) 7 SCC 221 and Narinder Chand Hem Raj v. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory Himachal Pradesh: AIR 1971 SC 2399; Dhananjay Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & others: Full Bench judgment in Writ Petition (S/B) No.45 of 2014 dated 21.05.2019). Since increase in the upper age limit from 35 to 42 years can only be made by an amendment to the 2007 Rules, which power is legislative in character, the relief which the petitioner seeks, for a mandamus to enhance the upper age limit from 35 to 42 years, cannot be granted. The cadre restructure is one such policy matter of the respondents, where in the Tribunal cannot issue directions as sought for by the applicant. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any merit in the OA. Hence the Original Application is dismissed with no order as to costs."
The present OA is fully covered by the above decision.
IV. Applicant has contended that there are many flaws in the RR- 2014 without stating as to what they are and hence, it can be no ground to look into. Further, the claim of the applicant that his promotion would be adversely affected does not persuade us since due to cadre restructuring, there could be many who could have benefitted. Organizational policies are directed towards the betterment of the organization, which includes the well-being of a large majority of the Organizational staff. In a merged cadre, seniors in the cadre would rank higher to the applicant and therefore, his seniority slipping to a lower number in the seniority list cited is an offshoot of the restructuring, which cannot be questioned. Restructuring is not meant only for the applicant but to the entire cadre and therefore, viewing the cadre restructuring from an individual perspective is unfair. Other contentions raised have also been gone into and finding them to be irrelevant no comments have been made.
Page 7 of 8 OA No.609/2015
V. Hence, in view of the aforesaid, there being no room to intervene on behalf of the applicant on grounds of merit, we dismiss the OA with no order as to costs.
(B.V.SUDHAKAR) (ASHISH KALIA)
ADMINISTRAIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
evr
Page 8 of 8