Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Ajit Gupta vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 24 February, 2022
1
OA No. 290/2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 290/2014
Order reserved on 15.02.2022
DATE OF ORDER: 24.02.2022
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dr. Ajit Gupta son of Late Shri Dhanendra Gupta aged
67 years, resident of 101, Pearl Passion, Goverdhan,
B-78, Rajendra Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur.
....Applicant
Shri Amit Mathur, counsel for applicant (through Video
Conferencing).
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Department
of Agricultural Research and education, Ministry
of Agriculture and Farmers welfare, Krishi
Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Indian Council of Agriculture Research,
through its Director General, Krishi Bhawan, New
Delhi.
.... Respondents
Shri S.S. Hasan, counsel for respondents (through
Video Conferencing).
ORDER
Per: Hina P. Shah, Judicial Member The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:- 2 OA No. 290/2014
"(i) the present original application may kindly be allowed and order Annexure-
A/1 may kindly be quashed and set-
aside and directions may be issued to the respondents to grant two advance increment to the applicant w.e.f.
27.07.1998. The respondents may be
further directed to give all
consequential benefits accordingly
alongwith the interest @ 12% per
annum.
(ii) any other order or direction which deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the applicant.
(iii) Cost of this original application also may be awarded in favour of the applicant."
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that he has earlier filed O.A. No. 470/2013 before this Bench of the Tribunal for issue of directions to respondents that he may be allowed benefit of two advance increments w.e.f. 27.07.1998. The said O.A. was disposed of by this Bench of the Tribunal vide its order dated 04.07.2013 with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to decide the pending representation of the applicant dated 30th May, 2011. In pursuance of the directions of this Tribunal, respondents rejected the representation of the applicant vide order dated 12.09.2013 (Annexure A/1) stating that the applicant is not entitled for two advance increments from 27.07.1998 for acquiring 3 OA No. 290/2014 PH.D degree since applicant joined as Junior Agronomist on 01.11.1971 and acquired Ph.D. degree in 1972 when there was no ARS service and there was no provision for grant of advance increment for acquiring Ph.D. degree at that point of time. The applicant clarified that there does not seem to be any justification for not extending an incentive to him. He has also relied on two Circulars dated 27.02.1999 as well as 14.05.2007 pertaining to revision of pay scales of Scientists of ICAR and clarification for grant of two advance increments which according to him these Circulars entitles him for grant of two advance increments for having done Ph.D. degree in his service career. Thus, according to the applicant as the impugned order dated 12.09.2013 (Annexure A/1) passed by respondents is contrary to circular dated 14.11.2005, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3 (a). After issue of notices, the respondent no. 2 has filed reply raising preliminary objections on ground of misjoinder of proper parties. It is further stated that impleading respondent no. 2 not being a necessary party, the O.A. is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Even impleading respondent no.1 is wholly 4 OA No. 290/2014 misconceived as there is no such department or ministry and, therefore, both the respondents are liable to be struck from array of respondents as mentioned and, thus, reply is filed by Secretary, ICAR. Respondents also stated that the O.A. filed by the applicant is hopelessly time barred and deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay as applicant has raised the issue after 7 years of his retirement and after 42 years of acquiring Ph.D. and after 15 years of introducing the scheme of grant of two advance increments to the Scientist who acquired Ph.D. and, thus, deserves to be dismissed. Even filing several representations cannot extend the period of limitation.
(b). On facts, respondent no. 2 further stated that the applicant has challenged order dated 12.09.2013 whereby he was informed that he is not entitled for two advance increments and, thus, his claim was rejected. The applicant joined his services as Junior Agronomist on 01.11.1971 in scientific cadre of ICAR. On 19.03.1972, he acquired Ph.D and retired from services on 31.10.2007. The scheme for grant of two advance increments was introduced in the year 1999. It was further stated that ICAR adopted University Grants Commission (UGC) pay package and 5 OA No. 290/2014 Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for scientists of ICAR w.e.f. 01.10.1986 pursuant to 4th CPC (UGC) recommendations. As per the provisions in the UGC package, a Scientist who joined with Ph.D degree on or after 01.01.1986 was eligible for three advance increments. There was no provision for grant of advance increments for acquiring Ph.D degree as per UGC package effective from 01.01.1986. It is further submitted that pursuant to 5th CPC recommendation, the pay scale of Scientists of ICAR were revised on the pattern of pay scale & CAS notified by the Ministry of Human Resources Development for the teachers of Universities and Colleges under UGC. As per ICAR notification dated 2nd February 1999 vide para (II)(d), it was notified that, "A Scientist will be eligible for grant of two advance increments as and when he acquires a Ph.D degree in his service career." It is further submitted that in pursuance of letter dated 10.10.2007 of the Director, DRMR, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, it was clarified that the Applicant is not entitled for grant of two advance increments on acquiring of Ph.D degree during service career vide Council's letter dated 10.12.2007. Thus, Respondents stated that as Applicant acquired Ph.D degree in March, 1972 after joining ICAR, he is not entitled for 6 OA No. 290/2014 grant of two advance increments. Further, as per Council's letter dated 12.12.2006, it was clarified that there was no incentive for having Ph. D degree at the time of appointment to the post of Scientist Grade S-1 prior to 01.01.1986 as per instructions in vogue. The incentive came only from 01.01.1986 in the UGC package with the specific objective of attracting Ph. D holders to join services as Scientist and to encourage non-Ph.D. in the service to acquire Ph.D. degree. So there does not seem to be any justification for extending them an incentive which did not exist in the case of the applicant. Respondents further stated that as the incentive came into force only w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and Applicant obtained Ph.D. in March, 1972, hence, he was not entitled for two advance increments. Thus, the claim of the Applicant was rightly rejected and the representation to that effect was disposed of vide reasoned and speaking order dated 12.09.2013 which was passed in compliance to Tribunal's order dated 04.07.2013 in OA No. 470/2013. Thus, the present O.A. deserves to be dismissed.
4. The applicant has not filed any rejoinder denying the submissions made by the respondents. 7 OA No. 290/2014
5. We have heard learned counsels for the parties at length through Video Conferencing and examined the pleadings minutely.
6. During hearing of the present O.A., it was brought to our notice that earlier this Bench of the Tribunal after hearing the parties at length had dismissed the present O.A. vide its order dated 22.12.2016. The findings recorded by this Tribunal are as under:
"11. xxx A harmonious reading of the various circulars and the facts of the case indicate that the incentive for having Ph.D degree or acquiring Ph.D degree started with the introduction of UGC package w.e.f. 01.01.1986 which was only for those who have joined with Ph.D degree on or after 01.01.1986 and were eligible for 3 advance increments. Further vide notification dated 27.02.1999 Ann. MA/1 two advance increments were introduced for those acquiring Ph.D degree in their service career. Next circular Ann. A/7 dated 14.11.2005 allows incentives to all those who acquire Ph.D degree during service career with actual benefits from cut off date i.e. 27.07.1998 and even those who acquired Ph.D degree during service prior to 01.01.1996 were made eligible but it does not make any reference to the fact that those who acquired Ph.D degree even prior to 01.01.1986 i.e. the date from which the UGC package was introduced were also eligible. The next circular Ann. A/6 dated 12.12.2006 clarifies that the incentive came only from 01.01.1986 in the UGC package with the specific objective of attracting Ph.D holders to join service as Scientist and to encourage non- Ph.D in the service to acquire Ph.D in service. A further clarification has been issued vide Ann. MA/2 dated 14.05.2007 as noted on pre-page. However, it does not specifically clarify whether even those who have acquired Ph.D degree prior 8 OA No. 290/2014 to 01.01.1986 would be eligible for advance increments because the scheme for advance increments began only after 01.01.1986 i.e. after introduction of the UGC package. Therefore, on a harmonious reading of the relevant circulars it appears that as the applicant acquired the Ph.D degree in 1972 which was well before 01.01.1986 i.e. prior to the UGC incentive package to Ph. D degree holders, the applicant cannot be said to be eligible for the advance increments as sought for.
12. In view of the above analysis there is no ground to grant any relief as sought for by the applicant and accordingly the OA is dismissed with no orders as to costs."
7. The aforesaid orders of this Tribunal dated 22.12.2016 was challenged by the applicant before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur by way of filing D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 826/2017. The Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 26.07.2018 quashed and set aside the order of this Tribunal. The order of Hon'ble High Court reads as under:
"5. In our considered opinion, though time was granted right from January, 2018, no reply was filed. Thus, the best option open for both the sides is to go before the Tribunal and tribunal will reconsider the matter and will apply the circular in true spirit considering the case of the petitioner.
6. In that view of the matter, the order passed in the original application is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the tribunal to decide the same as above and both the parties will appear before the tribunal on 6.8.2018."9 OA No. 290/2014
8. After going through the Hon'ble High Court order, it is clear that the order passed by the Tribunal was quashed and set aside, matter was remitted back for re-hearing and to decide the same. The basic grievance of the applicant as raised before the Hon'ble High Court was that the Circular dated 27.02.1999 has not been considered by the Tribunal in its true spirit. The other aspect considered by the Hon'ble High Court was that in spite of granting time to the respondents from January 2018, no reply has been filed. Therefore, the Hon'ble High Court opined that best option open for both the sides is to go before the Tribunal and Tribunal will reconsider the matter.
9. Thus, this Tribunal has to reconsider the Circular dated 27.02.1999 though the same was already considered by the Tribunal in detail with findings recorded on the same, besides other grounds raised by him, as the Hon'ble High Court has quashed the Tribunal's order dated 22.12.2016 and, thus, the matter is heard afresh. But before we proceed in the matter, we come to the question raised by the respondents in their reply that the OA filed by the applicant is hopelessly time barred and deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay as applicant has 10 OA No. 290/2014 raised the issue after 7 years of his retirement and after 42 years of acquiring Ph.D and after 15 years of introducing the scheme of grant of two advance increments to the Scientist. The plea of the applicant is that the same is recurring cause of action. But considering the submission of the respondents, it is clear that the present O.A. is hopelessly time barred as the same cannot be said to be recurring cause of action as if applicant had any grievance he should have approached the Tribunal within time as per Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. He cannot wait indefinitely and wake up at a particular point of time and then say that he is entitled for benefits as per Circulars of 1999 and 2007 and raise the grievance only in the year 2013 when he has retired in the year 2007 and obtained Ph.D degree in 1972. Thus, the present O.A. deserves to be dismissed on limitation itself.
10. Besides limitation, we would also like to see if there are merits in submissions of the applicant and, therefore, have also dealt on merits of the case. As far as the Circular dated 27.02.1999, more particularly Para 1 (ii) (d) is concerned, the same reads as under: 11 OA No. 290/2014
"(d) A Scientist will be eligible for two advance increments as and when he acquires a Ph.D degree in his service career".
Now coming to the arguments raised by the applicant that in the light of the said Circular, he is entitled for grant of two advance increments as he has acquired Ph.D in his service career. He has also placed reliance on the subsequent Circular dated 14.11.2005, which reads as under:
"The matter regarding grant of advance increments to the scientists for acquiring Ph.D degree during service career was revised in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Expenditure in terms of UGC notification no. F5- 3/2001 (PS) dated 31.08.01 and it has now been decided to allow the incentive to all those who acquired Ph. D degree during service career in an uniform manner, with actual benefits from the cut off date viz. 27.07.98. Accordingly all the Scientists (including Sr. Scientists, Principal Scientists and RMPs) who acquired Ph. D degree during service even prior to 1.1.96 and who were not given the benefit of any advance increments as per earlier Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) may now be given the benefits of two advance increments. This shall however be applicable from 27.07.98 and only to those who were in ICAR service as on 27.07.98."
Coming to the Circular dated 14.05.2007 relied upon by the applicant, the same reads as under:
"References have been received from some of the institutes enquiring as to whether in the light of ICAR circular No. 1(15)/98-Per.IV dated 12.12.2006 the Scientists who acquired Ph. D degree during service prior to 1.1.86 were eligible for the incentive of two advance 12 OA No. 290/2014 increments w.e.f. 27.7.98 in pursuance to circular dated 14.11.2005.
In this connection, it is stated that the two circulars cited above have dealt with separate issues. The circular No. 1(15)/98-Per.IV dated 14.11.05 referred to the cases of Scientists who had acquired Ph.D degree during service period and is applicable in the administration of the incentive of two increments for acquiring Ph.D degree any time during service period introduced w.e.f. 27.7.98. The circular dated 12.12.06 has communicated Council's decision in reference to the representations of such of the Scientists who had joined with Ph.D degree at S-1 level prior to 1.1.86 or on senior posts for which Ph.D was an essential qualification. The contents of the circular dated 12.12.06 have no bearing on those Scientists who had acquired Ph.D degree during service period."
11. On the other hand, respondents have relied upon Circular dated 12.12.2006, which reads as under:
"The matter has been carefully examined in the Council and it has been concluded that there was no incentive for having Ph.D degree at the time of appointment to the post of Scientist Grade S-1 prior to 1.1.86 as per instructions in vogue. The incentive came only from 1.1.86 in the UGC package with the specific objective of attracting Ph.D holders to join service as Scientist and to encourage non-Ph.D's in the service to acquire Ph.D. degree. So, there does not seem to be any justification for extending them an incentive which did not exist in their case. Likewise, there is no justification for this incentive in case of those who joined the scientific service of ICAR with Ph.D. degree on posts for which Ph.D was a minimum essential qualification for appointment."
Thus, as explained by the respondents, the incentive came only from 01.01.1986 in the UGC 13 OA No. 290/2014 package with specific objective of attracting Ph.D. holders to join service as Scientist and to encourage non-Ph.D's in service to acquire Ph.D. degree.
12. Coming to the various circulars relied upon by the parties, after going through them, as seen, the applicant joined services as Junior Agronomist on 01.11.1971 and acquired Ph.D. degree in the year 1972. Agricultural Research Service (ARS) came into existence w.e.f. 01.10.1975 and applicant was inducted in ARS w.e.f. 01.10.1975 as Scientist (S-1). As observed by us, there was no provision at that time to provide any incentive as per ARS rules for grant of advance increments for acquiring Ph.D degree. Thereafter, in pursuance of 4th CPC, ICAR has adopted UGC pay package and Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for the Scientists of ICAR w.e.f. 01.10.1986. As per the package, a Scientist who joined on or after 01.01.1986 with Ph.D. degree was eligible for three advance increments. But it was clear that there was no provision for grant of any advance increments for acquiring Ph.D. degree as per UGC package effective from 01.01.1986. Thereafter, pursuant to 5th CPC recommendation, the pay scales of Scientists of ICAR were revised and said revised pay scales were 14 OA No. 290/2014 effective from 01.01.1986 which were brought out by ICAR in its Notification No.1(15)/98-Pers.IV dated 27.02.1999 issued in this regard. As per para 1(ii)(d) of the said Notification dated 27.02.1999, it is clear that a Scientist is eligible for two advance increments as and when he acquires a Ph.D. degree in his service career. After this Circular, there was yet another Circular dated 12.12.2006, which clarified that the said incentive came into effect only from 01.01.1986 as per instructions in vogue. It was mentioned in the said circular that there does not seem to be any justification for extending the incentive in case of those who joined the scientific service of ICAR already holding Ph.D degree. Thereafter, Circular dated 14.05.2007 was issued on the subject. This Circular clarified about earlier two Circulars dated 12.12.2006 as well as 14.11.2005 and it clearly mentioned that Circular dated 12.12.2006 has no bearing on those Scientists who had acquired Ph.D degree during the service period. Thus, sum and substance of the Circulars is that the advance increments are to be given to those Scientists who acquire Ph.D degree in service as per Circular dated 12.12.2006 which was only with an intention to provide incentive to those 15 OA No. 290/2014 non-Ph.D persons in order to encourage them to acquire Ph.D.
13. Now coming to the submissions of the applicant towards Circular dated 27.02.1999, that as per the said Circular he is entitled for two advance increments as he has acquired Ph.D degree during the service career cannot be accepted for the simple reason that thereafter there were several Circulars issued from time to time in this regard produced by the respondents and annexed to the O.A. by the applicant as the Circular dated 12.12.2006 clarifies that the incentive of UGC package to be given only from 01.01.1986 with an intention to provide incentive to those non-Ph.D persons in order to encourage them to acquire Ph.D. As far as Circular relied upon by the applicant dated 14.05.2007 is concerned, it is clear that the same was with reference to two Circulars issued by ICAR and it clarified that those Scientists who had joined with Ph.D degree at S-1 level prior to 01.01.1986 or on senior posts for which Ph.D was an essential qualification, the contents of the Circular dated 12.12.2006 have no bearing on those Scientists who had acquired Ph.D degree during the service period.
16OA No. 290/2014
14. We do not find any substance in the grounds raised by the applicant towards entitlement for grant of two advance increments since the provision for grant of advance increment for acquiring Ph.D degree during service career was a part of revised UGC package which was effective from 01.01.1986 and advance increments were to be given from 27.08.1998. Also Applicant acquired Ph.D degree way back in the year 1972 when no such scheme for grant of incentives was in existence. As far as question of discrimination is concerned, Applicant has failed to produce any document as to which candidate who is similarly situated as him has been given the benefits but the Applicant has been deprived of the same.
15. On the other hand, we also find that the order dated 12.09.2013 (Annexure A/1), passed by the respondents in compliance of the order of this Bench of the Tribunal dated 04.07.2013 in earlier OA No. 470/2013, is a well reasoned and speaking order. The said order has already categorically dealt with the issues raised by the applicant in his representation as directed by this Tribunal and the respondents have explained in detail as to why the applicant is not 17 OA No. 290/2014 entitled for two advance increments. Thus, according to us, neither on limitation nor on merits, the applicant has any case and, thus, the said OA deserves to be dismissed.
16. Thus, in view of the observations and discussions made herein-above, we find that the impugned order dated 12.09.2013 (Annexure A/1) requires no interference by this Tribunal as the same is just and proper. We also do not find any merit in arguments raised by the applicant that he is entitled for two advance increments in the light of Circular dated 27.02.1999 as well as Circular dated 14.05.2007 in view of observations made by us in above paras. Accordingly, Original Application filed by the applicant being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(HINA P. SHAH) (DINESH SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER /nlk/