Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
M.L. Gour S/O Late Shri C.P. Gour vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 24 August, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Chandigarh: this 24th day of August, 2011.
HONBLE MRS. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (J).
HONBLE MRS. PROMILLA ISSAR, MEMBER (A).
(i) OA no. 586/PB/2009.
M.L. Gour s/o late Shri C.P. Gour, CL01047, and at present working as a Senior Assistant A in Semi-Conductor Laboratory (SCL), Sector 72, Phase-VIII, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), Punjab-160 071.
..Applicant.
(By: Shri S.K. Guevera, advocate).
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Space (DOS) Antariksh Bhawan, New BEL Road, Bangalore - 560 094
2. Semi-Conductor Laboratory (SCL) Sector 72, Phase-VIII, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab through its Director.
.Respondents.
(By: Shri Brajesh Mittal, Advocate)
(ii) OA no. 587/PB/2009.
Harjeet Singh s/o Shri Harcharan Singh, CL01325, and at present working as a Senior Office Assistant in Semi-Conductor Laboratory (SCL), Sector 72, Phase-VIII, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), Punjab-160 071.
..Applicant.
(By: Shri S.K. Guevera, advocate).
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Space (DOS) Antariksh Bhawan, New BEL Road, Bangalore - 560 094
Karnataka.
2. Semi-Conductor Laboratory (SCL) Sector 72, Phase-VIII, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab-160 071, through its Director.
.Respondents.
(By: Shri Brajesh Mittal, Advocate)
O R D E R
(By: Honble Mrs. Promilla Issar, Member (A) Since common questions of law and facts are involved, both the above titled OAs are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, facts have been taken from OA no. 586/PB/2009.
2. At the time of final hearing, it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the applicant that multiple reliefs had been asked for in the OA, which is not permissible under the law. He stated that only relief no. 4 is being pressed in the current OA. Consequently, only relief no. 4 is being adjudicated upon in this OA. Relief no. 4 in para 8 of the OA is as follows:-
That impugned order as Annexure A-11, by which the request of the applicant for promotional avenues has been rejected in para 1(7) is arbitrary and to be quashed and set aside.
3. It is the projected case of the applicant that he was initially appointed in M/s Semi-Conductor Complex Limited (SCC) on 11.2.1984 in the technical cadre as Technician-I. He was promoted as Technician-II in 1987. In 1989, he was verbally directed by Respondent no. 2 to work in the non-technical department of Materials Management with the designation of technical cadre. The applicant was given promotion from Technician-II to Technician-III in 1991 and thereafter to Technician-IV in 1994 and to Technician-V in 1997, but he continued to work in the non-technical department of Materials Management. In 2001, his designation was changed from Technician-V to non-technical cadre as Office Assistant-V by Respondent no. 2 and the applicant argues that this was in violation of the Standing Orders. In 2002, he was promoted as Junior Co-ordinator-I. The erstwhile SCC Company was wound up and the new organization namely, Semi-Conductor Laboratory (for short SCL) was formed as a Society and the applicant was appointed in the SCL on 1.9.2006. At the time of his appointment in SCL Society, he had signed a Memorandum and accepted the terms and conditions contained therein.
4. On 23.9.2006, the applicant submitted a representation in respect of his re-designation and transfer, but he did not receive a reply. It is his case that most of the technical cadre workmen, except the applicant and some other workmen, were considered for promotion even though he belongs to the technical cadre and was verbally asked to work in the non-technical cadre only through verbal orders. He has, therefore, claimed that he has been discriminated against vis-`-vis others who had joined the technical cadre like him. Finally, he has prayed that the impugned order Annexure A-11, dated 15.5.2008, by which his request for promotional avenues under the technical cadre has been rejected, may be quashed and set aside.
5. The respondents have filed their reply in which the first objection they have raised is that of delay. They have stated that the cause of action, if any, arose to the applicant in 2006 when the impugned orders were passed and subsequently vide Annexure R/1, dated 29.6.2006, the applicant had consciously and voluntarily opted for continuing in the service of SCL Society and, as per the terms of the Memorandum signed by the applicant, he had accepted the appointment in the non-technical cadre. It has been clearly stated in the declaration given by the applicant at the time of appointment in the SCL Society that he had been working as Junior Co-ordinator and agrees to continue in service with the SCL Society. They have therefore argued that this OA is barred by limitation.
6. On merits, they have stated that, as per the clarification received from the Department of Space (DOS) at the time of coming into existence of SCL Society, vide letter dated 15.5.2008, it was laid down as follows:-
In case of employees who joined SCL as Technicians and were posted to and working in Admin Depts. of SCL Co., for more than three years, were considered as Non-technical and accordingly given Administrative designations. From this it is clear that the applicant belonged to the non-technical cadre since he had been working for more than 3 years in the non-technical side in the SCC Ltd. It had also been decided vide letter dated 7.5.2008 that:-
While the Scientific/Technical personnel in ISRO are governed by Merit Promotion Scheme (where promotions are not linked to vacancies), the promotion of administrative personnel is linked to availability of vacancies. In case of employees working in Admin Areas, the employees with old designation as Technician for the last 3 years prior to conversion were also converted as Non Technical. They have argued that because of this policy decision, promotions to non-technical side/administrative side are made on the basis of availability of vacancies and the Merit Promotion Scheme of the technical cadre does not apply to them. They have also stated that the Standing Orders of the erstwhile SCC Ltd. do not apply to the SCL Society.
7. The applicant had filed an MA for placing on record the earlier office orders of the promotion policy of the erstwhile SCC Ltd.
8. The applicant has filed a rejoinder generally reiterating the averments made in the OA.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case.
10. The applicants were appointed in the SCL Society as Junior Co-ordinator on 1.9.2006 and this designation was later changed to Office Assistant. As per their own admission in the OA, the applicants had been working on the non-technical side since 1989, even though they kept on getting promotion on the technical side. The applicants never raised any objection to this and continued to work on the administrative/non-technical side from 1989 till 2005-2006 when the erstwhile SCC Ltd. was wound up. As per the Memorandum signed by them with the SCL Society, they were to be adjusted on equivalent posts in the newly constituted SCL Society. They were offered appointment as Junior Co-ordinator, which they accepted without any conditions. This was a policy decision of the competent authority which the applicants accepted and are therefore estopped by their own actions from raising this issue later. The applicants were not discriminated against in this respect vis-`-vis others, since the decision applies across the board to everyone.
11. We also find that as per the policy decision taken by the Department of Space, under whose administrative jurisdiction the SCL Society had been placed, persons who have been working for 3 or more years on the non-technical/administrative side in the erstwhile SCC Limited, were to be absorbed on equivalent posts in the SCL Society.
12. At the time of final hearing, it was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicants never raised any objection in both the predecessor and successor organizations before this, because the service conditions on the non-technical/administrative side were better than those on the technical side and they, therefore, did not object to working on the non-technical side. Now, in the SCL Society, as per the policy decision taken by the DOS, the Merit Promotion Scheme has been made applicable to technical personnel, whereas non-technical/administrative persons are to be promoted only on the availability of vacancies, which have not occurred in the SCL Society for some time. The applicants now therefore, want to take the benefit of the New Scheme in the technical cadre.
13. We find that as per the Recruitment and Promotion System adopted by the SCL Society, promotions are to be made as per the following policy, after dividing the staff in two broad categories:-
i)Scientific & Technical Staff.
ii)Administrative Staff.
Promotion of scientific and technical staff is purely merit-oriented under Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS), changed to Merit Promotion Scheme (MPS) vide letter no. ISRO: 1121M: SCL: 08-09, dated 12.5.2008, by upgrading the post held by the incumbent to the next higher post Promotion of Administrative staff will be on the basis of availability of vacancies.. We find that the applicants have been working on the Administrative side since 1989 as per their own admission also, had been appointed as such in the SCL Society and have continued to work in this cadre till date. They have not placed on record any document to prove that they had worked on the technical side. In any case, only their service in the SCL Society can be taken into account at present, since the SCC Limited has been wound up. Therefore, we also find that the Standing Orders etc. of the erstwhile SCC Ltd. do not apply to the present organization and do not come to the rescue of the applicants. As per the policy decision in respect of the employees of the SCL Society, the applicants have rightly been appointed on the administrative side and therefore, the instructions/rules meant for administrative personnel will apply to them. As per these instructions/rules/policy decision, personnel on the administrative side are to be promoted only on the availability of vacancies. The Merit Promotion Scheme does not apply to them and it has been admitted by both parties that no person junior to the applicants has been promoted. Therefore, we find that there is no arbitrariness or illegality in the action of the respondents regarding the promotion policy which will be applicable to the applicants.
14. Therefore, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this OA has been found to be devoid of merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(PROMILLA ISSAR) (SHYAMA DOGRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 24.8.2011.
ms
1
(i)OA no. 586/PB/2009 and
(ii) OA no. 587/PB/2009.