Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Narain Singh vs Union Of India on 10 July, 2024
O.A./1308/2009
(Reserved on 04.07.2024)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
***
Original Application No.1308 of 2009
th
Pronounced on this the 10 Day of July, 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Narayan Singh s/o late Naipal Singh R/o T-1, Indian Institute of Pulses
Research, Kalyanpur, Kanpur Resident of C/o Dr. A.K. Bhattacharya,
M-335 Keshavpuram Avas Vikas, Kalyanpur, Kanpur Nagar.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Anil Kumar
Versus
1. The Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture,
Krishi Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road New Delhi.
2. Director General/Secretary, Indian Council of Agriculture
Research, Krishi Bhawan, Dr. Rejendra Prasad Road, New Delhi.
3. Director, Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kalyanpur, Kanpur
4. Administrative Officer, Indian Institute of Pulses Research,
Kalyanpur, Kanpur.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri N.P. Singh
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A) Present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) to issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the order dated 21.8.2009 passed by Respondent No.4 (Annexure 16).
(b) to issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to consider the Page 1 of 9 MADHU KUMARI O.A./1308/2009 promotion of the applicant on the post of T-1 with all consequential benefits w.e.f. year 1997, when he passed High School Examination, and further promotion to the post of T-2 in year 2002, T-3 in the year 2007 as per circular dated 14.7.1990 and Technical Service Rules under Career Advancement Scheme.
(c) to award any other relief to the applicant which may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.
(d) to award cost of this application to the applicant."
2. Brief facts of this case as narrated in the Original Application are that the applicant is ex-military personnel and was appointed as Junior Fieldsman in pay scale of Rs.200-250 at the I.A.R.I, Regional Research Station, Kanpur w.e.f. 06.2.1976. The applicant was promoted in the year 1976 as S.S. Grade II in pay scale of Rs.200-250 and became S.S. Grade III in pay scale of Rs.210-290 vide order dated 21.09.1982. Respondent No.4 issued a seniority list dated 08.04.1987 in which the applicant was placed at Sl. No.11 in S.S. Grade III section of employees. The applicant passed High School Examination in 1997 and submitted his marksheet of High School on 8.7.1997 in the department. but his name was not included in the list of employees who had passed High School which was released vide letter dated 12.08.1997. The applicant made objection before the authority concerned through application dated 16.08.1997. In the ICAR circular dated 14.07.1997 guidelines are stipulated for preparation of seniority list of supporting staff in various grades for promotion on the post of T-1 Grade in Technical Service and LDC/Junior Clerk on the administrative side. The applicant got promotion to the post of S.S.-VI in the year 1993 and was promoted to the post of T-1 in the year 2004. The applicant retired in the year 2010.
3. We have heard learned counsels appearing for both the parties.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was discriminated against in respect of promotion. He submits that one Shital Deen who became S.S. Grade II in year Page 2 of 9 MADHU KUMARI O.A./1308/2009 1978 became SS Grade III in 1982 after completing 5 years while the applicant got promotion from S.S. Grade II to S.S. Grade III after 7 years i.e. in 1982. He states that the circular dated 14.07.1997 prescribes academic qualification as High School with experience as eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of T-1 and the juniors to the applicant were promoted to the post of T-1 during 2002-2003 but the respondents ignored the applicant's eligibility, qualification and experience and he was promoted to the post of T-1 in 2004 being superceded by his juniors such as Shri Raghuvanshi, Deomani Pandey, Raja Ram, Chhote Lal, Shiv Gopal and Dinesh Chandra Yadav. Besides, Shri Deomani Pandey, Shri Raghuvanshi Singh and Raja Ram were promoted from SS Grade III directly to the post of T-1 jumping and bypassing the next higher post of SS Grade IV which is unjust. Similarly Shri Chhote Lal and Shiv Gopal SS Grade III were also promoted directly to the post of T-1, who were later on reverted back to SS Grade IV vide Office Order dated 04.03.2003. He submits that the applicant has been promoted to the posts of SS Grade-II, SS Grade-III and SS Grade IV consecutively by virtue of his seniority and eligibility. The applicant passed the High School examination in 1997 and became eligible for promotion to the post of T-1 in 1997. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that by virtue of circular No. 7-10-90 Estt-IV dated 14.7.1990 and Technical Service Rules with amendment in year 2000, prescribing 5 years service for next higher promotion, the applicant would have got his promotion to the post of T-2 in 2002 and further to the post of T-3 in year 2007. He argues that one Raja Ram Diwakar S.S.G (Chowkidar) got promotion to the post of S.S.G-III w.e.f. 29.2.1992 after which he filed an O.A. before this Tribunal and in execution of this Tribunal's orders dated 04.03.1993 and 28.04.1993, Shri Raja Ram Diwakar was promoted with effect from 11.03.1991 with all consequential benefits and he junior Shri Raghuvanshi who was promoted in 1991 was reverted back. He further argues that in a similar case, one Raja Ram Diwakar got promotion to the post of T-1 in the year 2000 although he passed Page 3 of 9 MADHU KUMARI O.A./1308/2009 his High School in year 1991. Mr. Raja Ram Diwakar filed O.A. No. 489 of 2001 (Raja Ram Diwakar Vs. Indian Counsel of Agricultural Research and others) and prayed for direction to respondents to give him promotion with all benefits w.e.f. 30.07.1991, the date when he passed his High School Examination and the same was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider representation of the applicant which has been considered, the benefit has been given to him. He further argues that the applicant filed a representation dated 19.1.2009 before respondent Nos. 3 and 4 but respondent No.4 rejected the same vide its order dated 21.08.2009 without taking a judicious approach.
5. In the counter reply, the respondents have submitted that the applicant has been given promotion as T-1 w.e.f. 09.08.2004 which has been provided by the Departmental Promotion Committee which is an expert body whose decision has not been challenged by the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant was appointed as field man SSG Grade-II on 30.03.1976 as direct recruitee and he was eligible for promotion in the grade of SSG Grade-III after completion of 5 years of regular service in SSG-II. The seniority list dated 08.04.1987 was prepared on the basis of date of birth, initial appointment and appointment in Grade I, II and III. The applicant furnished his marksheet in the year 1997 and as per the provision contained in order No. 7-10/90-ESTT-IV dated 14.07.1997, the applicant was eligible for promotion as T-1 after gaining 5 years experience in the relevant field from the date of acquiring the qualification of matriculation. Accordingly, the applicant was considered for promotion as T-1 in 2004 after the vacancy arose in T-1 Grade. Learned counsel for the respondents argues that Raghuvanshi Singh, Dev Mani Pandey, Raja Ram, Shiv Gopal, Dinesh Chand acquired the qualification of matriculation much more before the applicant and accordingly, after the vacancy arose in T-1, they were promoted as T-1 and thereafter, T-2. It is further submitted that Ram Swaroop, Devi Prasad, S.P. Kushwaha, K.S. Mishra, Ram Iqbal, Ganga Ram, Page 4 of 9 MADHU KUMARI O.A./1308/2009 Anant Ram, H.N. Maurya were senior to the applicant and were promoted as T-1 in 1979 and T-2 in 2002-2003. He contends that the order dated 21.08.2009 has been passed based on the committee report, in accordance with service rule and communicated by the Administrative Officer, therefore, the said order is legal and valid.
6. In his rejoinder learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the respondents themselves admitted that the applicant was eligible for promotion in grade III after completion of 5 years regular service in SS-II while the applicant was appointed on 06.02.1976 and got promotion on SS Grade III after complete of about 7 years on 21.09.1982. It is further submitted that Rule 6.1 of ICAR Handbook of Technical Services (Technical Services Rules 1975) says about career advancement scheme:-
"6.1. There shall be a system of merit promotion from one grade to the next higher grade irrespective of the occurrence of the vacancies in the higher grade or grant of advance increment(s) in the same grade on the basis of the assessment of performances. The persons concerned will be eligible for consideration for such promotion or grant of advance increment(s) after the expiry of the number of prescribed years of service in the grade."
The applicant further argues that the seniority list dated 08.04.1987 was neither prepared on the basis of date of birth nor initial appointments. He contends that the office order No.7_10/90_Estt_IV came on 14.07.1997 while the applicant submitted his High School Marksheet on 08.07.1997 when the aforesaid office order was not in existence and there is no clause therein which is applicable with retrospective effect and one Shri Ram Iqbal cleared his High School Examination in 1979 and became T-1 in the same year and another Shri Anant Ram passed his High School Examination in 1980 and became T-1 in the year 1981.
Page 5 of 9MADHU KUMARI O.A./1308/2009
7. Rebutting the arguments of the applicant, the respondents submit in the supplementary counter that if the applicant is seeking promotion on T-1 post since 1997, it is necessary on the part of the applicant to challenge the promotion of those employees who have been promoted between 1997 and 2004. It is submitted that Rule 6.1 of ICAR Handbook of Technical Services (Technical Services Rules 1975) cited by the applicant is meant for the Technical category and not for supporting category. In Technical category there is a provision of next promotion or advance increment from T-1 to T-2, T-2 to T-3 and so forth but in supporting category i.e. from SS. Gr-I to SS. Gr-II and so forth, promotion is subject to availability of vacancy. It is further stated that Sh. Ram Iqbal and Sh. Anant Ram were promoted as per the provision under rule 7.1 of Technical Service Rules (Hand book 6th March, 1978) as they possessed the requisite qualification and experience at that time. It is further submitted that no person from supporting staff can be promoted in T-1 category -I without availability of post under promotion quota, however, it is reiterated that when a person is placed as T-1 in category-I thereafter he can be considered for further promotion as per Technical Service Rules i.e. T-1 to T-2 and so on irrespective of the post. It is also submitted that the incumbents shown senior to the applicant joined in the post of supporting staff much prior to the applicant and the list was circulated vide office memo dated 08.04.1987 with the direction that any objection for this seniority may be represented to the office by 10.04.1987 but no representation was received on behalf of the applicant and based on the guideline vide letter dated 14.07.1997 issued by the ICAR, New Delhi, with regard to counting of five years experience, the incumbents got the promotion/ seniority irrespective of the grade of supporting post.
8. In the supplementary affidavit, the applicant has further argued that the under the extant rules certain relaxation has been given regarding educational qualification in Rule 6(ii) for Ex-servicemen with not less than three years service in Arms Force for appointment in group 'D' and group 'C' and minimum Page 6 of 9 MADHU KUMARI O.A./1308/2009 educational qualification can be relaxed by appointing authority in view of the same as the applicant has more than three years service as Ex-serviceman in the Arms Force and further working with the respondents since 1976, as such, in view of the above facts and being senior most, the applicant should have been granted benefits of promotion to T-1 from the date of passing of Matriculate/ High School i.e. 1997 but the respondents have illegally denied the same to the applicant and have wrongly given that benefit to the juniors of the applicant. It is further argued that in spite of availability of two vacancies at the relevant time and the applicant being eligible, he was not promoted as T-1 in 1997.
9. We have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the entire documents on record.
10. The main issue involved in the present case is whether the applicant should be granted promotion as T-1 w.e.f. 1997 which is when he passed the High School Examination or should he be subjected to the requirement of five years experience after acquiring High School Certificate before being eligible for promotion on the said post. The applicant was appointed on 30.03.1976 at the I.A.R.I, Regional Research Station, Kanpur w.e.f. 06.2.1976 as Supporting Staff Grade II and was promoted to Grade III vide order dated 21.09.1982. He passed the High School in 1997 and submitted his certificate in the department on 08.07.1997. As per ICAR circular dated 14.07.1997:- "2. The experience in the relevant filed for promotion to the grade T-I of Technical Services in Category - I shall mean the experience in the relevant field gained after acquiring the qualifications of Matriculation or other academic/ professional qualification for relevant functional group." The applicant has contended that this should not be applicable retrospectively and since he submitted his High School Certificate on 08.07.1997, he is not covered by the aforesaid circular. With respect to this, it must be understood that if the said circular is not effective retrospectively it would mean Page 7 of 9 MADHU KUMARI O.A./1308/2009 that the previous Departmental Promotion Committee shall not be affected by it while the Departmental Promotion Committee that is constituted after the commencement of the circular will be covered by the same and the apparently the case of the applicant was to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee constituted after the commencement of the circular dated 14.07.1997 even though he submitted his High School Certificate on 08.07.1997. Furthermore, a perusal of the comments of the Enquiry Committee annexed at page 27 of the Counter Affidavit dated 09.08.2010 reveals that Sh. Chottey Lal, Sh. Raghuvanshi, Sh. Deo Mani Pandey, Sh. Raja Ram and Sh. Dinesh Chandra who were promoted as T-1 before the applicant had acquired the required experience of five years after passing the High School before the applicant.
11. So far as the contention of the applicant regarding relaxation for ex-servicemen is concerned, the relevant relaxation and concessions regarding qualification as mentioned in Rule 6 of Swami's Hand Book reads as under:
"(ii) Educational Qualifications.-- Ex-Servicement with not less than three years in the Armed Forces is exempted from possession of the prescribed educational qualifications for Group 'D' posts. For Group 'C' minimum educational qualification may be relaxed at the discretion of the appointing authority, if such minimum qualification is Middle School Standard and the Ex-Servicemen has put in at least three years service in the Army and is otherwise found suitable. A matriculate Ex-Serviceman with 15 years service in the Armed Forces will be considered eligible for posts for which graduation is prescribed, if work experience of technical or professional nature is not essential or if the appointing authority is satisfied that the Ex-Servicemen will perform the duties by undergoing on-the-job training for a short duration."
The aforesaid relaxation clearly stipulates that for Group 'C' posts the minimum educational qualification may be relaxed at the "discretion" of the appointing authority and that if such minimum Page 8 of 9 MADHU KUMARI O.A./1308/2009 qualification is "Middle School Standard". The minimum qualification for the post of Technician - I is "High School" and the applicant cannot claim the relaxation mentioned in the aforesaid rule. Furthermore, It has been correctly contended by the respondents that Rule 6.1 of ICAR Handbook of Technical Services (Technical Services Rules 1975) cited by the applicant is meant for the Technical category and not for the supporting category. Once the applicant is promoted in the Technical Category he becomes eligible for further promotion irrespective of the occurrence of the vacancies in the higher grade and not before that.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, we are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 21.08.2009 as the applicant did not have the requisite qualification as per Technical Service Rules in the year 1997 as claimed by him. Thus, we find that this case does not merit any interference from this Tribunal. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) ( Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
Madhu
Page 9 of 9
MADHU KUMARI