Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Dr K P Singh vs M/O Environment And Forests on 9 February, 2023
O.A. No.498 /2012
(Reserve on 31.1.2023)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench
Allahabad
****
Original Application No. 498/2012
Pronounced on 9th day of February, 2023.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
Dr. K.P. Singh s/o late D.S. Singh r/o 537/154, Puraniya
Near Puraniya Railway Crossing, Aliganj, Lucknow.
Applicant
By Advocate: Sri Pankaj Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Paryavaran Bhawan,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel Public
Grievance and Pensions, Department of
Personnel and Training,NewDelhi-110003.
Respondents
By Advocate: Sri K.K. Ojha
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) This O.A. has been filed by the applicants U/s 19 of the AT Act, with the prayer to issue appropriate order for revision of (i) date of in situ promotion of Scientist E to F with effect from due date i.e. 1.1.2004, (ii) again grant in situ promotion of Scientist F to G with effect from due date i.e. 1.1.2009 and (iii) finally refixation of pay and pension and grant payment of arrears of pay etc. to the applicant in the light of direction given by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment and order dated 2.5.2011 in S.L.P. (Civil) (CC No. 6864/2011) Union of India and another Vs. S.K. Murti.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to the O.A. are that applicant joined as Botanist on 4.11.1975 in Botanical Page 1 of 6 O.A. No.498 /2012 Survey of India. Subsequently, he was promoted on the post of Systematic Botanist on 31.12.1980 and thereafter got promotion as Scientist D on 1.1.1990, as Scientist SE on 1.1.1995, as Scientist E on 19.9.2000 (now 1.1.1999 as per Apex Court order) and ultimately Scientist F on 1.2.2008. Applicant got retired on 28.2.2010. 5th Central Pay Commission in chapter 51 made a number of recommendations for modifying Flexible Complementing Scheme in Scientific and Technological Department for in situ promotion of Scientist with a view to removing the shortcomings /inadequacy in the scheme. O.A. No. 826/2003 (Dr. S.K. Murti and others Vs. Union of India and another was filed before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal which was disposed off vide order dated 3rd December, 2003. One of the applicant in O.A. No. 826/2003 preferred writ petition (Civil) No. 14263 of 2004 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and High Court vide order dated 5.10.2010 allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to grant the benefits to the writ petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.1999 instead of 19.9.2000. Aggrieved against the judgment dated 5.10.2010, the Union of India preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) (CC No. 6864 of 2011) which was dismissed vide order dated 2.5.2011 and further directed as under:-
"Since the time fixed by the High Court for compliance of the direction given by it has already expired, we direct the petitioner to do the needful within four weeks from today. Similar order shall be passed for similarly situated persons despite the fact that they may not have approached the High Court questioning the order passed by the Tribunal. This direction is being given to avoid further litigation in the matter."Page 2 of 6 O.A. No.498 /2012
In pursuance of the aforesaid order, applicant made a representation dated 9.8.2011 to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest for promoting him to the post of Scientist E on 1.1.1999 instead of 19.9.2000, Scientist F w.e.f. 1.1.2004 instead of 1.2.2008. Vide order dated 3.11.2011, the applicant was informed that there was no order of Hon'ble High Court /Supreme Court regarding consequential benefits except arrears of pay which have been paid by BSI. Therefore, no further action was called for in the matter on the representation.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have filed counter affidavit stating therein that the directions of the High Court dated 5.10.2010 in W.P. No. 14263 of 2004 was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 2.5.2011 which has been complied with by granting in situ promotion under FCS from 1.1.1999 instead of 19.9.2000 to all the applicants including the applicant. However, there is no direction regarding antedating of all future in-situ promotion due after retirement in respect of all these officials. Accordingly, representation of the applicant dated 9.8.2011 was duly considered in the light of aforesaid judgment and it was informed that the direction in the matter was implemented by the Ministry in the totality vide order dated 21.7.2011. Further, there was no order regarding consequential benefits except arrears of pay which has been paid to the applicant. It is further stated that direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court to extend the benefit of antedating the promotion is applicable in personem and not in rem.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for applicant argued that once the promotion w.e.f. 1.1.1999 has been granted to the applicant, then its automatic corollary would be to give further promotion after completion of residency period of Page 3 of 6 O.A. No.498 /2012 five years from Scientist E to Scientist F on 1.1.2004. Promotion on the post of Scientist F was given to the applicant on 1.2.2008 due to delayed assessment by the Ministry. It is further argued that inordinate delay of 4 years 2 months is caused great damage on the career of the applicant. It is further argued that next promotion of Scientist G became due on 1.1.2009 after completion of 5 years but the same was not done and the applicant was meanwhile retired on 28.2.2010.
5. Learned counsel for respondents argued that there was no order regarding consequential benefits except arrears of pay which has been paid to the applicant.
6. We have considered the rival submission and gone through the entire record.
7. In similar facts and circumstances, Hyderabad bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.626 of 2012 (Dr. S.Z.Siddiqui Vs. Union of India and others decided on 24.7.2015) directed the respondents to promote the applicant from the post of Scientist C to Scientist D w.e.f. 29.1.2006 and from Scientist D to Scientist E w.e.f. 29.1.2010 with all consequential benefits. It is admitted fact that applicant was given promotion as Scientist E w.e.f. 1.1.1999, his next promotion as Scientist F was due on 1.1.2004 and further next promotion as Scientist G was due on 1.1.2009 but the same was not given to him. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court never said that only one promotion will be given w.e.f. 1.1.1999. Once a promotion is given w.e.f. 1.1.1999, his next promotion is due after completion of residency period of 5 years. Case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant fully supports the case of the applicant. Hence, the court is of the view that O.A. is liable to be allowed.
8. Accordingly, O.A. is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of applicant for promotion to Scientist F w.e.f. 1.1.2004 instead of 1.2.2008 and next Page 4 of 6 O.A. No.498 /2012 promotion of Scientist G w.e.f. 1.1.2009 which has not been given to the applicant due to retirement of applicant on 28.2.2010 and grant all the consequential benefits to the applicant. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sanjiv Kumar) (Justice Om Prakash-VII) Member (A) Member (J) HLS/- Page 5 of 6 O.A. No.498 /2012 . Page 6 of 6