Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Beena M G vs The Chairman And Secretary Drdo New ... on 10 July, 2023
-1-
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00031/2019
Monday, this the 10th day of July 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr.K.V.EAPEN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. Beena.M.G.,
Aged 60 years, D/o.Gopalan,
Technical Officer A (now retired),
Naval Physical & Oceanographic Laboratory,
Thrikkakara, Ernakulam District - 682 021.
Residing at Makkaparampil House,
Near Bombay Stores, Thrikkakara P.O., Kochi - 21.
2. Basil James,
Aged 54 years, S/o.James.P.V.,
Technical Officer A, Now Technical Officer B,
Naval Physical & Oceanographic Laboratory,
Thrikkakara, Ernakulam District - 682 021.
Residing at Pulparambil House,
Thrikkakara, Kochi - 682 021.
3. Madhusudhanan.S.,
Aged 52 years, S/o.P.G.Sivankutty Unnithan,
Technical Officer A, Now Technical Officer B,
Naval Physical & Oceanographic Laboratory,
Thrikkakara, Ernakulam District - 682 021.
Residing at Type IV/47, NPOL Quarters,
Thrikkakara, Kochi - 682 021.
4. Suresh Babu.V.R.,
Aged 60 years, S/o.late Krishnankutty.P.,
Technical Officer A, Now retired as Technical Officer C,
Naval Physical & Oceanographic Laboratory,
Thrikkakara, Ernakulam District - 682 021.
Residing at Radhamandiram, Enkakkad P.O.,
Wadakancherry, Thrissur District - 680 589.
-2-
5. Sivasankara Marar.A.C.,
Aged 57 years, S/o.late Chandrasekhara Marar,
Technical Officer A, Now Technical Officer C,
Naval Physical & Oceanographic Laboratory,
Thrikkakara, Ernakulam District - 682 021.
Residing at No.IX/102 Sreesailam, VMA Lane,
Kudilimukku, Thrikkakara, Kochi - 682 021. ...Applicants
(By Advocate Mr.Babu Cherukara)
versus
1. Union of India represented
by the Chairman & Secretary DRDO, Ministry of Defence,
Department of Defence Research And Development,
DRDO Bhavan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi - 110 105.
2. Director,
Directorate of Human Resources Development,
Defence Research and Development Organisation,
Ministry of Defence, Government of India,
DRDO Bhavan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi - 110 105.
3. Director,
Naval Physical and Oceanographic Laboratory,
Defence Research and Development Organisation,
Thrikkakara P.O., Ernakulam District, Kochi - 682 021.
4. Secretary,
Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance, Government of India,
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
5. Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension,
Government of India, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
6. Controller General of Defence Accounts,
Ministry of Defence, Government of India,
Ulan Batar Road, Palam, Delhi Cantt. - 110 010. ...Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.N.Anilkumar, SPC)
This application having been heard on 14 th June 2023, the Tribunal on
10th July 2023 delivered the following :
-3-
ORDER
HON'BLE Mr.K.V.EAPEN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicants in this O.A consist of retired and serving employees of the Naval Physical and Oceanographic Laboratory (NPOL), Ernakulam, an organisation under the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) of the Ministry of Defence (MoD), Government of India. Essentially, they have filed this O.A for a declaration and a direction that the benefits of the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) and Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) be released to them. They had previously filed representations for the purpose which have not been considered by the respondents.
2. It is submitted that all the applicants had entered in the service of the DRDO in the entry cadre of Junior Scientific Assistant Grade II/Draughtsman Grade III (JSA II). This post was later renamed as Technical Assistant 'A' after a new cadre called the Defence Research Technical Cadre (DRTC) was formed in the DRDO during the year 1995. Similarly, the Junior Scientific Assistant Grade I (JSA I) was renamed as Technical Assistant 'B'. It is submitted that on completion of 5 years service as Technical Assistant 'A' the employees were likely to be promoted to the then promotion post of Technical Assistant 'B'. On completion of another 5 years, they were likely to be promoted to the post of Senior Technical Assistant, which was subsequently renamed as Senior Technical Assistant -4- 'C'. It is submitted that after the implementation of 6 th Central Pay Commission (CPC) on 01.01.2006, the applicants' posts were merged with the post of Technical Officer 'A' and they were granted the Grade Pay (GP) of Technical Officer 'A'. The entry cadre candidates in the post of Senior Technical Assistant 'B' were granted with the basic pay as that of the Senior Technical Assistant 'C'. However, the Senior Technical Assistant 'C' employees who were merged with Technical Officer 'A', were only given the equivalent replacement basic pay in relation with the Senior Technical Assistant 'C', without grant of any notional increment or higher GP which is generally due on promotion. Thus, it is submitted by the applicants that the existing Senior Technical Assistants 'C' were only merged and placed as Technical Officers 'A', without upgradation of pay as per the promotion rules. It is submitted that the merging of two posts of Senior Technical Assistant 'C' and Technical Officer 'A' cannot thus be treated as a promotion. The same is only a renaming of designation. Thus, the case of the applicants is that since, in reality, no promotions were effected to them as per the promulgated ACP Scheme as on 01.01.2006, they, who have completed more than 12 years of service without any promotion, are eligible for financial upgradation. Similarly, the subsequent MACP Scheme was introduced with effect from 01.09.2008 for which too the applicants are eligible by virtue of 20 years of service having been completed. Thus, it is submitted that the applicants may be granted the benefits under both the ACP and MACP Schemes.
-5-
3. The case of the 1st applicant, Smt.Beena.M.G., Technical Officer 'A', now retired has been detailed by the applicants for outlining the issues. It appears that Smt.Beena.M.G had joined the service of the NPOL as a Junior Scientific Assistant Grade II (JSA-II) on 31.08.1989 in the pay scale of Rs.1320-2040. She was granted a promotion to the post of Junior Scientific Assistant Grade -I (JSA-I) on 16.02.1993 in the pay of Rs.1400-2300 as per the applicable rules at that time. As noted earlier, the DRTC came into existence in the DRDO during the year 1995. On its coming into force the designation of officers were also changed and the post occupied by Smt.Beena.M.G., was renamed as Technical Assistant 'B'. While working as Technical Assistant 'B', the 5 th CPC recommendations were implemented on 01.01.1996 and the pay scale was changed to Rs.5500- 9000. Later on 01.09.2000, Smt.Beena.M.G., was promoted as Senior Technical Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 as per the DRTC Rules applicable at that time. While she was in the post of Senior Technical Assistant, the DRTC got reviewed once again and the post was renamed as Senior Technical Assistant 'C'. Later when the 6 th CPC was implemented on 01.01.2006, the pay scales of Senior Technical Assistant 'A', Senior Technical Assistant 'B' and Senior Technical Assistant 'C' posts were merged together. It is submitted by applicants that as a result in effect the promotions granted were nullified. The post was given a GP of Rs.4200/- and renamed as Senior Technical Assistant 'B'. Meanwhile, existing Senior Technical Assistants 'C' in the DRDO, like Smt.Beena.M.G., were merged -6- with Technical Officers 'A' with a GP of Rs.4600/-. It is submitted that the fixation of the basic pay was done as a Central Pay Commission equivalent replacement pay of the existing basic pay without any promotional or financial benefits.
4. It is submitted that as is clear from the above, the 1 st applicant Smt.Beena.M.G obtained promotion to the post of Senior Technical Assistant 'C' only on 01.09.2000 ie., after completing a service of 11 years after she had joined as Junior Scientific Assistant Grade II (JSA II) on 31.08.1989. However, it has been declared that a new entrant who is posted as Senior Technical Assistant 'B' is allowed to draw the pay as that of a Senior Technical Assistant 'C'. Thus it is contended that by this step it should be taken that the promotion after 11 years of service rendered by Smt.Beena.M.G had been nullified by the implementation of the 6 th CPC. Further as per the 6th CPC, the post of Senior Technical Assistant 'C' was merged with Technical Officer 'A', without any financial or promotional benefits. Thus on 01.01.2006, Smt.Beena.M.G, the 1 st applicant, became Technical Officer 'A' only due to merging of posts. She continued in that post till her retirement on 31.10.2018.
5. It is submitted by the applicants that as evidenced by the experience of Smt.Beena.M.G., when compared with a new entrant who is Senior Technical Assistant 'B' and who draws a basic pay which is the same as the -7- erstwhile Senior Technical Assistant 'C', it is clear that the designation of Smt.Beena.M.G only was changed when her post was merged to the post of Technical Officer 'A'. Thus, overall taking into account the situation after the 6th CPC implementation, it is submitted by the applicants that it can be inferred that the 1st applicant had been never granted any promotion or benefit ie., no financial upliftment in her entire service right from her joining the service till her retirement. This somewhat convoluted logic is further extended by them when they submit that the difference in the Grade Pay from Rs.4200/- to Rs.4600/- in the case of Smt.Beena.M.G was only on account of the merger of posts after the implementation of the 6 th CPC as on 01.01.2006. It is contended by the applicants that this merger cannot be treated as a promotion. Thus, it is submitted that the 1 st applicant was never promoted and was never granted any financial upgradation benefit during her entire service in the NPOL`of more than 29 years. Since no promotion has been granted to her, it is submitted that she is entitled to get the 1 st financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme as per the scheme promulgated thereon with effect from 01.01.2006 and also eligible for the 2nd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme on 31.08.2009 when she completed 20 years of service as per the MACP Scheme.
6. Very similar contentions in this regard are made in case of each of the applicants by bringing out the details of their career and the posts held by them in seriatim in the O.A. These details are not outlined here as the main -8- basis of the contentions made is similar to the case of the Smt.Beena.M.G. In effect, it is contended that all the applicants had completed more than 14 years of service as on 01.01.2006 and were, therefore, eligible for 1 st financial upgradation as per the ACP Scheme. However, no steps were taken by the DRDO to extend the benefits. It is submitted that the stand of the DRDO that the ACP scheme was not made applicable to DRTC employees due to the reasoning that there was another scheme in operation in the DRDO called the Limited Flexible Complementing Scheme (LFCS) was not acceptable, as they did not get any promotion under the LFCS also. Representations made to Chairman, DRDO in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2018 by the applicants have had no response. In this situation, it is submitted that the DRDO should take into account that it was to provide relief to the left out candidates that the ACP and MACP Schemes were promulgated and thus it should be extended to them as well.
7. It is also submitted that it is relevant in this regard that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in its judgment dated 13.02.2017 in Writ Petition No.61691 and 61692 of 2016 had upheld an earlier order of the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in a very similar matter in O.A.No.1020/2013. It is to be noted that by this decision the benefits of the MACP Scheme were extended to the petitioners therein. It is also submitted that when ACP Scheme benefits were made applicable to Flexible Complementing Scheme beneficiaries, it should have been surely made -9- applicable to Limited Flexible Complementing Scheme beneficiaries in DRTC also. The DRDO had filed Special Leave Petition (SLP) No.016823 and 016824 of 2017 registered on 29.06.2017 on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. These were dismissed at the admission stage itself on 06.07.2017. A copy of the order of the C.A.T., Bangalore Bench in O.A.No.1020/2013 dated 08.01.2016 is produced at Annexure A-4. Similarly, a copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 13.02.2017 in W.P.(C) Nos.61691/2016 and 61692/2016 is at Annexure A-5.
8. Thus, taking into account all these grounds, it is submitted that there can be no basis or sufficient reason to deny ACP and MACP benefits to the applicants. It is further submitted that a similar view had been taken by the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.No.1098/2014 as per order dated 25.05.2018, produced at Annexure A-7. However, the applicants have not been provided with those benefits under ACP and MACP Schemes till date. Hence, they claim the following relief :
1. Declare that the applicants are eligible for ACP and MACP Scheme benefits from their respective 12 and 20 years of service in DRDO (Defence Research and Development Organisation) as they did not get any promotional financial benefits in their service during such periods.
2. The respondents may be directed to assess the ACP and MACP Scheme benefits with interest due to the applicants and pay the same forthwith.-10-
3. Issue any other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances in the case and also those are prayed for during the pendency of the O.A.
4. Order for the entire costs.
9. The respondents have filed a series of three reply statements. In their first reply statement it was clarified by them that the applicants in this O.A belong to the DRTC of DRDO. The promotions from one grade to another grade in this cadre are effected under the merit based Limited Flexible Complementing Scheme (LFCS) through a system of assessment. It is submitted that the members of DRTC cadre of DRDO are not eligible for ACP/MACP scheme benefits, since they were covered under LFCS scheme of promotion which is based on assessment. This position was challenged by DRTC cadre employees before the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal by filing two separate cases ie., O.A.No.1019/2013 and O.A.No.1020/2013 seeking financial upgradation under MACP Scheme. The O.As were allowed by the Tribunal, which was also subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.61692/2016 and Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.016823-016824/2017 on 06.07.2017.
Consequently, the 1st respondent had issued a letter dated 07.06.2019 extending the benefits of the MACP scheme with effect from 01.09.2008 to all DRTC employees in DRDO in conjunction with the existing LFCS scheme. This letter has been produced along with the first reply statement at Annexure R-1. Accordingly, it has also been submitted that the -11- respondents were taking necessary action to grant benefits of the MACP Scheme to eligible DRTC cadre employees including the applicants in the O.A. This was subject to their meeting the promotional norms, including benchmarks prescribed by the competent authority. However, it is submitted by the respondents that none of the applicants was eligible to be granted any benefits under the erstwhile ACP scheme since all of them had secured at least one promotion (as can be seen in the detailed case of the 1 st applicant brought out earlier) within 12 years of joining service. Thus no grievance survives in respect of the applicants in the O.A. Hence, it was prayed to close the O.A by recording the statement of the respondents, as the O.A has been rendered infructuous by Annexure R-1 order.
10. The applicants then contested the above contentions in their rejoinder stating that the stand taken by the respondents that none of the applicants were eligible to be granted any benefit under the erstwhile ACP Scheme since all of them have secured at least one promotion within 12 years of joining service does not hold good, as all the promotions obtained by the applicants were nullified on merging of the posts with effect from 01.01.2006 and all the applicants were only provided with merged designation as on 01.01.2006. To clarify the position it was stated that the Senior Technical Assistant 'A' and Senior Technical Assistant 'B' were merged together and re-designated as Senior Technical Assistant 'B' and they were granted the Grade Pay of Senior Technical Assistant 'C' without -12- any change in the basic pay which is a consequential benefit of promotion or by granting the higher increment of the promotional post. Similarly, those who were working as Senior Technical Assistant 'C' were merged with Technical Officer 'A' with their merged designation as Technical Officer 'A'. They too were not granted any promotional increment and their basic pay stood at the same level as that of Senior Technical Assistant 'C'. Thus, in effect, there was no promotional benefit to the applicants on their posts merging with higher promotional posts. As on 01.01.2006 all the applicants had more than 12 years of continuous service without a promotion or any financial benefit. When 12 years of service have been rendered without a promotion or financial benefits, the ACP Scheme should have been applied. It is thus submitted that all the applicants should have been provided with ACP benefits with arrears as per the 6 th CPC as on 01.01.2006, by granting them their pay fixed in the scale of Technical Officer 'B' and approval to draw financial benefit at that time as per the Scheme.
11. The respondents filed an additional reply statement in response to the rejoinder. It is submitted that the ACP Scheme had been notified by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T), Government of India on 09.08.1999 envisaging grant of two financial upgradations on completion of 12 years without any promotion and 24 years of regular service with not more than one promotion, respectively, either in a cadre or in an isolated post. It is submitted that the Annexure R-1 order which was issued by the -13- 1st respondent following the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka/upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has provided only for grant of benefits of the MACP Scheme and not under the erstwhile ACP Scheme for the reason that the Government had, only after 6 th CPC, decided to extend benefit of MACP to Scientific and Technical Cadres covered by Flexible Complementing Scheme vide DoP&T O.M dated 10.09.2010. Earlier, the ACP/MACP benefit was not admissible to employees covered under separate promotion schemes. Thus, seeking benefit of ACP at this belated stage, would be extending the scope of the Court judgments and the Government scheme notified by DoP&T.
12. Further, even notwithstanding the technical position above, it is submitted by the respondents that if the contention of the applicants for grant of financial upgradation benefit under ACP Scheme is to be accepted, it is still to be considered that even after the merging of posts after the implementation of recommendations of the 6 th CPC, all the applicants had secured at least one promotion within their initial service of 12 years after their appointment. The details of the promotions secured in all these cases are brought out in Annexure R-2 in respect of each of the applicants. It is further submitted that the office of the 1st respondent vide letter dated 17.03.2016 had extended the benefit of pay fixation under the Civilians in Defence Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 to those employees who had got promoted to a higher merged post between 01.01.2006 and 09.09.2008 -14- which promotion it is claimed had later got nullified due to the merger with effect from 01.01.2006. However, the 3rd, 4th and 5th applicants in the O.A had been promoted from the post of Senior Technical Assistant 'C' to Technical Officer 'A' within the aforesaid period and since these posts were merged retrospectively with effect from 01.01.2006 on account of grant of common GP of Rs.4600/-, the pay of these applicants have been refixed as per rules by granting an additional increment with effect from the date of their promotion to Technical Officer 'A'.
13. The contentions of the respondents were again contested by the applicants in their additional rejoinder by reiterating the same position as earlier that all the above so called promotions were nullified on implementation of the 6th CPC. It is submitted that in the case of all five officers their post was merged with another post without any financial benefit ie., without hike in the scale of pay or increment. The MACP had been implemented only in August 2008 however by that time also as on 01.01.2006, all the applicants had more than 12 years of service and were therefore entitled for ACP benefits. Further, it is submitted that the grant of the MACP benefit cannot be treated as a remedy for not granting the ACP benefit. All the applicants were entitled for ACP benefits on completion of 12 years of service and the consequential hike in scale of pay and increment. Hence, the applicants once again contended that in effect all promotions were nullified by the merger of pay scales and replacement of merged pay -15- scales by revision after the implementation of the 6 th Pay Commission. They reiterated that there was no promotion and they are entitled to the ACP benefits with effect from 01.01.2006.
14. These reiterated and repeated contentions of the applicants were sought to be met by in the second additional reply statement filed by the respondents in July 2021. In that reply statement it was submitted once again that the benefits of MACP Scheme had been extended with effect from 01.09.2008 to all DRTC employees in DRDO (including the applicants) in conjunction with the existing LFCS. In this connection, the Annexure R-1 letter had already been issued by the 1 st respondent. Paragraph 3 of the first reply statement of the respondents was again referred to, wherein, it had already been submitted that none of the applicants were eligible to be granted any benefit under the erstwhile ACP Scheme since all of them had secured at least one promotion within 12 years of joining service. It was seen that a rejoinder was thereafter filed by the applicants claiming their eligibility for financial upgradation under the erstwhile ACP Scheme. However, in response to the same, another additional reply statement was filed by the respondents denying the contentions raised in the rejoinder pertaining to the applicants' eligibility for financial upgradation under the erstwhile ACP Scheme. Moreover, the service profile of all the applicants was elaborated in Annexure R-2 to the additional reply statement showing the promotions availed by the -16- applicants. Thereafter, it is submitted that the additional rejoinder now filed by the applicants has again only reiterated that they are eligible for benefits under the erstwhile ACP Scheme. To this, the respondents can only reiterate their submission that the ACP Scheme is not applicable for DRTC cadre employees, such as the applicants, at the policy level itself.
15. The respondents further reiterate that all the applicants had secured at least one promotion within the first 12 years of their service, which additionally makes them ineligible for claiming any benefit under the ACP Scheme. It is submitted that the promotions in the Defence Research Technical Cadre (DRTC) of the applicants are governed by DRTC Rules, 2000. These rules provide for a Limited Flexible Complementing Scheme (LFCS), wherein, a prescribed percentage of employees having completed prescribed residency service get promotions based on their merit decided by an Assessment Board as prescribed in the rules without any linkage to seniority. On promotion the post held by the individual stands upgraded and he continues to perform the same duties as before. Hence the consideration for the promotion is time bound and in-situ in nature. Further, it is contended that in terms of the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, the scientific and technical services of Departments (like DRDO) are exempt from the purview of DoP&T in matters related to recruitment, promotion and seniority, as brought in Annexure R-3 extract from the Allocation of Business Rules. It is submitted that the ACP Scheme -17- had been notified by the DoP&T on 09.08.1999 as per which employees of Central Government who did not get promotion even after completion of 12/24 years were given two financial upgradations ie., one each in the interval of 12/24 years. As per paragraph 13 of the O.M notifying the ACP Scheme various time bound promotion schemes, including in-situ promotion scheme in various ministries/departments could not have run concurrently with the ACP Scheme. For this reason too, the ACP Scheme was not admissible to DRTC cadre which had its own promotion scheme, namely, the Limited Flexible Complementing Scheme (LFCS), providing time bound consideration for promotion.
16. It is submitted that the MACP Scheme had a similar provision and as such could not have been implemented for DRTC cadre. However, in September, 2010 the DoP&T as the nodal Department, the 5 th respondent, had modified their Flexible Complementing Scheme applicable to Scientists and issued a Modified Flexible Complementing Scheme vide O.M dated 10.09.2010. This provided for extension of MACP benefits to scientific cadres covered under FCS. In other words, it permitted concurrent running of FCS and MACP Schemes, as produced at Annexure R-4. However, it is again reiterated that as per Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, the scientific and technical posts of DRDO are exempted from the purview of DoP&T. As such the merit based promotion schemes of the scientific and technical posts had remained unaltered and the -18- MACP Scheme was not admissible to the Scientific and Technical employees of the DRDO. However later, the DRDO only decided to implement MACP Scheme concurrently with FCS, based on the court cases referred to earlier and DoP&T's O.M dated 10.09.2010. It is again reiterated that there was no question of implementing ACP Scheme since there is neither any policy change by the Government in that regard nor any court order to that effect. The applicants in the O.A have been granted MACP benefits and their pay refixed upon grant of financial upgradation under MACP Scheme vide orders dated 17.08.2020 and 07.09.2020. Further, besides the inapplicability of ACP Scheme to DRTC cadre employees at the policy level as outlined above it is again reiterated that all the applicants in the O.A have secured at least one promotion within a span of 12 years of joining service in spite of their contention that they have not. The ACP Scheme envisaged grant of financial upgradation only on completion of 12 years of regular service without any promotion and for second financial upgradation after completing 24 years of regular service with not more than one promotion. It is submitted that the applicants cannot deny the facts of their promotions as evidenced in Annexure R-II even if they contend that merger of posts had effectively taken away their promotion.
17. With regards to the repeated contention at paragraphs 3 to 9 of the additional rejoinder that the merger of posts had nullified this promotion, it is again re-submitted by the respondents that all the applicants had already -19- secured at least one effective promotion to the post of Senior Technical Assistant 'C' in pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 (granted upgraded pay in PB-2 plus GP Rs.4600/- with effect from 01.01.2006) within 12 years of their initial appointment in the post of JSA-II/Draughtsman III with pay corresponding to 5th CPC pay scale Rs.5000-8000 before 01.01.2006. This had been detailed in Annexure R-2. The subsequent merger of certain pay scales with effect from 01.01.2006 was not relevant in ascertaining their eligibility for grant of 1st financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme. Further it was evident from the entire gamut of the facts that the grant of MACP to DRTC cadre employees by the Hon'ble Courts, was also on account of the fact that DoP&T, vide their O.M No.AB-14017/37/2008-Estt (RR) dated 10.09.2010, had permitted benefit of MACP in cadres of scientists governed by Flexible Complementing Scheme. The claim of the applicants at this late stage for grant of benefit of the ACP Scheme introduced on 09.08.1999 during 5 th CPC has thus no basis either in fact or in law, apart from being barred by limitation. Further, even if the benefits of the ACP Scheme were to be allowed, none of the applicants can be eligible for financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme as they had clearly been beneficiary of a promotion within the relevant period as brought out earlier.
18. We have considered all the above differing contentions and it is clear to us at the outset that the matter should have been taken as time barred as the applicants are praying for grant of the ACP Scheme with effect from -20- 01.01.2006 in an O.A which has been filed by them as late as in January, 2019. Even if we overlook the prayer as barred by limitation on the basis of continuing cause of action, the facts that have been brought by the respondents, especially in Annexure R-2, clearly indicate that at least one promotion has been enjoyed by the applicants to the post of Senior Technical Assistant 'C' in pay scale Rs.6500-10500 and they have been granted upgraded pay in PB-2 plus GP Rs.4600/- with effect from 01.01.2006 within a period of 12 years of service after their initial appointment in the post of JSA-II/Draughtsman III with pay corresponding to the 5th CPC pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 before 01.01.2006. Hence, they are not eligible even on this ground under the guidelines of the ACP Scheme to be granted the first financial upgradation. Further, they have been already granted the second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme with effect from their due dates in light of the Court orders as well as following DoP&T's instructions in case of FCS beneficiary employees as brought out in the reply statements.
19. We feel that at this late stage to grant the benefit of ACP Scheme to a class of DRDO employees who were not eligible, ab initio, nor who had approached this Tribunal in time, would be not reasonable. Further, no specific case has been made of any malafide or any other consideration in the matter. The fact remains that DRTC employees of the DRDO were not covered mutatis mutandis under the normal DoP&T rules on such schemes, -21- which are applicable to other Central Government employees. The Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 have makes this clear by excluding the scientific and technical services under the DRDO from aspects such as recruitment, promotion and seniority. Hence even on these grounds, we do not think that there has been any case made for extending, at this late stretch of time, the benefits of the already much expired ACP Scheme.
20. Hence, due to the above facts and reasonings, we are not in a position to allow the O.A. The O.A is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.
(Dated this the 10th day of July 2023)
K.V.EAPEN JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
asp
-22-
List of Annexures in O.A.No.180/00031/2019
1. Annexure A-1 - A copy of the representation dated 18.12.2017 submitted by the 1st applicant to the respondents 1 to 3.
2. Annexure A-1(a) - A copy of the representation dated 21.12.2017 submitted by the 2nd applicant to the respondents 1 to 3.
3. Annexure A-1(b) - A copy of the representation dated 21.12.2017 submitted by the 3rd applicant to the respondents 1 to 3.
4. Annexure A-1(c) - A copy of the representation dated 12.02.2018 submitted by the 4th applicant to the respondents 1 to 3.
5. Annexure A-1(d) - A copy of the representation dated 11.01.2018 submitted by the 5th applicant to the respondents 1 to 3.
6. Annexure A-2 - A copy of the ACP Scheme which bears the O.M.No.35034/197 Estt.(D) & DoP&T dated 09.08.1999.
7. Annexure A-3 - A copy of the MACP Scheme 35034/3/2008-Estt. (D) of DoP&T dated 19.05.2009.
8. Annexure A-4 - A copy of the order in O.A.No.1020/2013 of CAT Bangalore Bench dated 08.01.2016.
9. Annexure A-5 - A copy of the judgment in W.P.(C) Nos.61691/2016 & 61692/2016 of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 13.02.2017.
10. Annexure A-6 - A copy of the print out judgment in Special Leave Petition No.016823 and 016824/2017 dated 06.07.2017 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
11. Annexure A-7- A copy of the order in O.A.No.1098/2014 dated 25.05.2018 of the CAT, Cuttack Bench.
12. Annexure R-1 - A copy of the Letter No.DHRD/76066/OA-1019- 1020/2013/ADE/C/M/01/864/2019/D(R&D) dated 07.06.2019.
13. Annexure R-2 - A copy of the details of promotions secured by the applicants.
14. Annexure R-3 - A copy of the extract from Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961.
-23-
15. Annexure R-4 - A copy of the extract of Department of Personnel and Training O.M.No.AB-14017/37/2008-Estt.(RR) dated 10.09.2010 on MFCS, indicating the applicability of MACPS to scientists covered under Flexible Complementing Scheme.
_______________________________