Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
G V Ramana Reddy vs M/O Defence on 6 January, 2022
OA No.526/2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH :: AT HYDERABAD
OA/020/00526/2015
Date of CAV : 30.11.2021
Date of Pronouncement : 06.01.2022
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judl. Member
Hon'ble Mr.B.V.Sudhakar, Admn. Member
1.GV Ramana Reddy, S/o Late G Ramakrishna Reddy
Age: 49 Yrs, Occ: SDM (C), SBC (V)
R/o H No. 13-52/1, NAD Layout, Sujathanagar Post,
Visakhapatnam-530 051.
2.G Visweswara Rao, S/o Late G Suryanarayana
Age: 57 Yrs, Occ: JDO (E), SBC (V)
R/o D No. 58-11-9, Old Karasa,
NAD Post, Visakhapatnam-530 009.
3.GVVL Narayana, S/o G Venkateswara Rao
Age: 52 Yrs, Occ: JDO (E), SBC (V)
R/o G-16, Green Meadows Apartment,
Madhavadhara VUDA Layout,
Visakhapatnam-530 018
4.E Visweswara Rao, S/o Late E Appa Rao
Age: 59 Yrs, Occ: JDO (C), SBC (V)
R/o D No. 3-88, Purushothapuram,
Sujathanagar Post, Visakhapatnam-530 051
5.OVG Krishna Rao, S/o. Late O Appa Rao
Age: 55 Yrs, Occ: JDO (E), DB Department,
Naval Dockyard,R/o Flat 509, Hema Paradise,
Santhi Nagar, NAD Post, Visakhpatnam-530009
6.V.V Papa Rao, S/o Late V. Narayana Murthy
Age: 55 Yrs, Occ: JDO (E), Naval Dockyard
R/o D No. 21-55/1, SKML Nagar, Kakani Nagar,
NAD Post, Visakhapatnam-530009
7.K Siva Rama Raju, S/o Late K. Suryanarayana Raju
Age: 55 Yrs, Occ: SDM (E), Ship Wright School (V)
R/o D No. 50-117-17/7/1, Alluri Sita Rama Raju Nagar,
Sitammadhara, Visakhapatnam-530013
8.A K Visweswara Rao, S/o. Late A Soma Raju,
Age: 59 Yrs, Occ: SDM (L), SBC (V)
Page 1 of 10
OA No.526/2015
R/o Plot No. 8, Chalamayya Layout,
Beside Tirumala Nagar, Vadlapudi
Visakhapatnam-530046
9.B Ramachandra Rao, S/o Late B Ramana Rao
Age: 56 Yrs, Occ: SDM (E), SBC (V)
R/o H No. 39-23-12A (First Floor),
Vamsy Nagar, Madhavadhara
Visakhapatnam-530 007
10.P Appala Naidu, S/o P China Demudu
Age: 55 Yrs, Occ: SDM (E), INS Virbahu
R/o H No. 37-10-10/1-1, Balaji Nagar,
Industrial Estate post,Visakhapatnam-530 007.
11.D Chandra sekhar, S/o Late Sri D Gopala Krishna
Age: 43 Yrs, Occ: SDM (C), HITU (V)
R/o D No. 6-52/4, Venkata Padma Nivas,
NAD Colony, Krishnaraya Puram
Sujatha Nagar Post, Visakhapatnam-530051
12.K Govinda Rao, S/o Late K Maheswara Rao
Age: 54 Yrs, Occ: JDO (E), Naval Dockyard
R/o D No. 32-10-72, F-6, Larven Plaza,
Venkateswara Colony
Sheela Nagar, Visakhapatnam-530012
13.Smt. Y Ratna Kumari, W/o Y Somanna
Age: 56 Yrs, Occ: SDM (C), SBC (V)
R/o H No. 14/4A, Lakshmi Residency,
Near Tondam Vinayaka Temple
Lalita Nagar, Visakhapatnam-530 016
14. PR Prasad Gupta, S/o Late P Ramanaiah
Age: 55 Yrs, Occ: JDO (E), SBC (V)
R/o 37-19-11, Pattabhi Reddy Thota,
Visakhapatnam-530 007
15.Smt. U Janaki Raghavan, W/o UGV Raghavan
Age: 54 Yrs, Occ: JDO (Arm), NAD (V)
R/o 9-81, NAD Layout, Sujatha Nagar Post,
Visakhapatnam-530 051
16.D Devendra Deo, S/o Late D Surya Narayana
Age: 54 Yrs, Occ: SDM (Arm), CNAI (V)
R/o 13-73/5, NAD Layout, Papayya Raju Palem,
Sujatha Nagar PostVisakhapatnam-530 051
17.KSR Murthy, S/o Late K Satyam
Age: 62 Yrs, Occ: JDO (C) Retd., (from SWS (V))
Page 2 of 10
OA No.526/2015
R/o 57-28-23/1/4, Bhavani Gardens, Near Old ITI Junction
Visakhapatnam-530 007
18.H Samba Siva Rao, S/o Late H Krishna Murthy
Age: 64 Yrs, Occ: JDO (C) Retd., (from SBC (V))
R/o 21-33-4/5, Laxmi Polisetty Nilayam,
Town KothaRoad,Visakhapatnam-530 001.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Smt. Anita Swain)
Vs.
1.The Union of India,
Rep by its Secretary Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi- 110 011.
2.The Chief for Naval Staff,
(The Principal Director)
Directorate of Civilian Personnel
Naval Headquarters, D II Wing, Sena Bhavan
New Delhi - 110 011.
3.The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief,
Headquarters Eastern Naval Command,
Naval Base P.O, Visakhapatnam - 530 014.
4.The Additional Controller of Defence Accounts (Navy)
Area Accounts Office, NAD Post, Visakhapatnam-530 009
....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. M.Venkata Swamy, Addl. CGSC)
---
Page 3 of 10
OA No.526/2015
ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr. B.V.Sudhakar, Admin. Member) Through Video Conferencing:
2. The OA is filed in regard to grant of ACP benefits to the applicants.
3. Brief facts are that the Tracers and Naval Apprentices were appointed as Draughtsmen based on a departmental competitive exam as per SRO 71/1985 till 2002. The applicants claim that they were not granted ACP benefits violating DOPT guidelines on the subject. Hence, the OA.
4. The contentions of the applicants are that their appointment as Draughtsmen has to be treated as direct recruitment. Clause 8 of DOPT OM dt. 10.02.2000 has been cited in support of the cause of the applicants.
Further, DOPT clarified on 23.08.2011 to treat the appointment of ex- apprentices in the cadre of Draughtsman as direct recruitment from the date of joining in terms of SRO 71/1985. Ministry of Defence has issued concurrent orders on 11.10.2021 and those appointed as Draughtsman from ex-apprentice cadre were given the benefit but not to those from the Tracers category. Draughtsman Association took up the issue but the request was turned down vide letter dt. 22.09.2014 citing the same reason. The number of Tracers to be granted the benefit is only 18. The applicants aver that on par with Naval Apprentices, they too appeared in the departmental competitive exam and got selected as per provisions of SRO 71/1985. Respondents cannot follow two different policies for Tracers & ex- apprentices though they were selected through a departmental exam and a common seniority list was issued.
Page 4 of 10 OA No.526/2015
5. Respondents in the reply statements contend that Draughtsman post is the promotion post for the Tracer cadre. Ministry of Defence (MOD) on consulting DOPT has clarified vide letter dt. 11.10.2011, that appointment of Ex-Naval Apprentices as Draughtsman is direct recruitment, whereas appointment from Tracers cadre is treated as promotion. Apprentices are given stipend and Tracers a definite scale of pay on joining the respondent organization. Besides, Apprenticeship period is not counted for granting pension. Qualified apprentices are appointed as Skilled (SK), Highly Skilled (HSK)-II and HSK-I depending on the marks scored. Further, as per MOD letter dt. 15.09.1995, Tracers have been placed in a higher scale of pay of Rs.1200-2400 and re-designated as Draughtsman-III, implying that they belong to the Draughtsman cadre. Draughtsman post is not the regular line of promotion for Tradesman. The number of individuals affected is not the criteria.
Applicants filed a rejoinder claiming that the post of Tracer is not the feeder cadre for Draughtsman since no common seniority list was issued, given the fact that Tracers are appointed independently by the different commands of the Navy. Work of Draughtsman and that of Tracers is different and in fact, Tracers' duties and responsibilities have not been specified. Tracers are discriminated by not granting ACP benefits since they too have to pass Deptl. Competitive Exam for appointing them as Draughtsman. If the Tracer post were to be the feeder cadre to Draughtsman post, then Draughtsman scale has to be granted after 12 years under ACP, which is not the case. Mode of recruitment of Naval Apprentice & Traces is one and the same. SRO 183/2003 was issued Page 5 of 10 OA No.526/2015 creating the post of Draughtsman Grade III by abolishing Tracer post in 2003 and made it the feeder post for Draughtsman Grade II. Common seniority lists were maintained from 2003 onwards. Tracers and Naval Apprentices are paid the same scale. Period of service rendered by Tracers is reckoned in a similar manner like that of ex-Naval Apprentices. R-2 has recommended grant of ACP benefits to Tracers vide letter dt. 24.06.2014 (Annexure Ex.A-6 of Rejoinder). Respondents filed Additional Reply claiming that as per SRO 71/1985, Tracers form a part of the Draughtsman cadre. DOPT has clarified vide letter dt. 23.08.2011 that Tracers promotion as Draughtsman cannot be considered as direct recruitment.
Applicants filed a rejoinder to the Additional Reply citing the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Union of India & Others v. Sri Kajal Chakraborty in WPCT No.511 of 2013 on 18.11.2021 wherein it was held that when there is no element of seniority involved then such selection should be treated as direct recruitment. Judgment of the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal was also cited by the applicants in support of their contention.
6. Heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings on record. 7(I) The crux of the dispute in the OA is as to whether the appointment of Tracer as Draughtsman has to be treated as promotion or direct recruitment for granting ACP benefits. Applicants point out that Ex-Naval apprentices who have been appointed as Draughtsman, their promotion has been treated as direct recruitment and not the Tracers though parallels can be drawn Page 6 of 10 OA No.526/2015 between the two cadres. Respondents per contra state that the matter was taken up with DOPT and thereafter, MOD letter dt. 11.10.2021, was issued clarifying that Ex-naval Apprentices selection as Draughtsman has to be considered as direct recruitment.
II. The interesting aspect in the dispute is that the Tracers and the Ex- naval Apprentices appear in Departmental Competitive Exam (DCE) and on clearing the same, they are appointed as Draughtsman. Respondents claim that Tracer post is a part of Draughtsman cadre by referring to the recruitment rule postulated under SRO 71/1985. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
"S.R.O. 71 - In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, and in supersession of the Navy Group „C‟ (Non-Industrial Posts) Recruitment Rules 1972, in so far as they relate to the posts of Chief Draughtsman (Civil/ Mechanical/ Electrical/ Construction/ Armament/ Artists/ Charts), Head Draughtsman (Civil/ Mechanical/ Electrical/ Construction/ Armament/ Artists/ Charts), Senior Draughtsman (Civil/ Mechanical/ Electrical/ Construction/ Armament/ Artists/ Charts), Draughtsman (Civil/ Mechanical/ Electrical/ Construction/ Armament/ Artists/ Charts) and Tracer, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the President hereby makes the following rules regulating the method of recruitment to Group 'C' Non-Industrial post of Drawing Office Staff in the Navy namely:-
1. (i) Short Title and commencement.- These rules may be called the Navy (Group 'C', Non-Industrial Posts, Drawing Office Staff) Recruitment Rules, 1985."
The provisions of SRO 71/1985 for the post of Draughtsman, are as under:-
Method of recruitment In case of recruitment by promotion/ deputation/ (Column 11 of SRO 71/1985) transfer, grades from which promotion, deputation, transfer is to be made (Column 12 of SRO 71/1985) By promotion failing that by Promotion: The promotion will be made on the basis transfer and failing both by of quota indicated below against each category:-
direct recruitment
1. Tracers who have put in not less than 20 years service in the grade - 10%.
2.Naval Apprentices who have successfully completed at least 36 months apprenticeship and are in service in Naval Establishments and Tracers with 5 years service on the basis of Departmental Competitive Examination - 90% Page 7 of 10 OA No.526/2015 Note: In case Tracers with 20 years service are not available, the remaining posts shall be filled from the category at Sl. No. 2"
From the recruitment rules, it is clear that Tracer forms a part of the Draughtsman cadre. However, applicants have claimed that, assuming that they belong to Draughtsman cadre, they have not been granted ACP after rendering 12 years of service. This averment has not been answered by the respondents. Further, from the facts, it is evident that Tracer post was abolished and Draughtsman III post created in 2003 vide SRO 183/2003. Prior to 2003, the status of Tracer is claimed to be an isolated post by the applicants. Respondents filed an affidavit claiming that Tracer is part of the Draughtsman cadre, but did not enclose instructions/ clarification issued on the subject. Besides, the application of the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Union of India v. Sri Kajal Chakraborty to the instant case has not been responded to by the respondents.
III. The judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad Bench of this Bench in OA No.330/00061/2015 dt. 10.03.2021 in regard to appointment of a lower grade official as Postal Assistant being treated as direct recruitment has also not been touched upon by the respondents. The key issue is that from two streams where employees are selected to a single grade, can they be discriminated particularly when they pass the same departmental qualifying exam. SRO 71/1985 prescribes 5 years for Tracer and 36 months Apprentice training for Naval apprentice, to be eligible to appear in DQE for Draughtsman grade. The recruitment rule itself provides promotion Page 8 of 10 OA No.526/2015 both for Tracers and Naval Apprentice. If so, respondents need to bring in more clarity as to why Tracers appointment as Draughtsman is to be treated as promotion.
IV. As the issue falls in the domain of a policy decision, we are of the opinion that the respondents need to take up with DOPT once again by referring to the points raised by the applicants in the OA/ Rejoinder filed. We do observe that R-2 has earlier recommended for treating the appointment of Tracers as Draughtsmen as Direct Recruitment for the purpose of ACP/ MACP, vide Note dt. 24.06.2014 and hence, a revisit in view of the above observations is called for. Respondents' claim of pay scales, nature of duties of the two cadres being different have been reasonable refuted by the applicants and their submissions in this regard have not been contested by the respondents. Surprisingly, the work of the Tracers was reported to be not defined as per the applicants' version and the same was not rebutted by the respondents. Thus, there are many open issues in the dispute which have not been responded to by the respondents. All of them need a close relook.
V. Therefore, keeping the above in view, we direct the respondents to take up with DOPT by preparing a comprehensive proposal in terms of the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta and Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal cited supra and the points raised by the applicants in the OA/ Rejoinder as well as our observations and latest developments on the issue, for considering the case of the applicants on par with that of the Naval Apprentices, to treat their appointment in Draughtsman cadre as direct recruitment for extending ACP benefits. Thereafter, MOD to issue Page 9 of 10 OA No.526/2015 appropriate instructions based on the advice of DOPT within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.
VI. With the above direction, the OA is disposed of, with no order as to costs.
(B.V.SUDHAKAR) (ASHISH KALIA)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
evr
Page 10 of 10