Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute For ... vs Gopinathan C on 3 April, 2025

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute For ... vs Gopinathan C on 3 April, 2025

The present OP(CAT) is directed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 4.7.2018 in OA No.781 of 2016. The case set up by the respondent-applicant before the Tribunal was that the respondent No.1 ie. the petitioner herein had denied him one increment in the scale of Chief Accounts Officer (CAO). The applicant according to him joined the services under the organization as an Accounts Officer on 29.9.1992 and was promoted as Accounts Officer Grade B on 11.4.2001. When the post of CAO was notified to be directly recruited an application was submitted on behalf of the respondent-applicant and after due process, was selected as CAO with effect from 9.12.2008 and retired on 31.10.2009 ie., almost by rendering ten (10) months of service and therefore could not complete ten (10) years of service in the CAO cadre. The normal increment in the post of Accounts Officer, the post held by the applicant was with effect from July every year and the last increment in that particular grade was drawn by the applicant on 7.9.2008 before directly recruited as CEO. Thus his case for grant of the next increment on the ground that he has joined as CAO was denied.

OP (CAT) NO. 112 OF 2019 3

2025:KER:29781

2. The stand of the petitioner was that the request of the respondent-applicant was rejected vide Annexure A4 dated 8.4.2009. The impact of FR22 22(1)(a)(1) on the implementation of the Pay Commission Order, the respondent will not be entitled to the increment as he had only held the post for a period of ten (10) months. Learned Tribunal though in paragraph 8 of the judgment under challenge observed differently but in paragraph 9 allowed the benefit of one increment.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent-applicant had also against the judgment dated 4.7.2018 in OA No.781 of 2016 wherein the respondent- applicant had claimed the relief of fixation under FR22 22(1)(a) (1) and had preferred OP No.106 of 2019 which has already been dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 13.1.2025. Therefore the present petition is liable to be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- applicant countered the argument and submitted that the Tribunal has not applied the provisions of FR22 22(1)(a)(1) for granting the benefit but on the basis of the applicable Rules.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. The finding given by us in the OP (CAT) NO. 112 OF 2019 4 2025:KER:29781 connected matter preferred by the respondent-applicant ie., OP (CAT) No.106 of 2019 decided on 13.1.2025, we had held as under:

9. On analysis of Rules 15 as well as Fundamental Rules, we are of the view that the Fundamental Rules would not be applicable as there is no inconsistency in the Rules as, the framers of the Rules have, in their wisdom, considered all the aspects while revising the pay structure. Even otherwise, when the petitioner - applicant had sought selection, he was aware that he would not have been able to complete ten(10) years of qualifying service and his pension would be much lesser. We do not find any illegality and perversity in the order under challenge.

6. On perusal of the findings of the Tribunal as well as our findings we are of the view that since the respondent-applicant had not rendered 10 years of service as CAO would not be entitled to the next increment as CAO because he was already given an increment prior to directly recruited ie., 7.9.2008. In this view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable, hereby set aside. OP(CAT) is allowed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/-

sab                                     K. V. JAYAKUMAR
                                               JUDGE
 OP (CAT) NO. 112 OF 2019          5

                                                  2025:KER:29781
                  APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 112/2019

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1            TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION
                      781/2016.

EXHIBIT P1(A1)        TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER OF APPOINTMENT
                      LETTER

NO.P&A11/319/CAO/SSSC/SCTIMST/2008 DATED 4.12.2008.

EXHIBIT P1(A2) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.P&A/XI/24/SCTIMST/2008 DATED 25.11.2008.

EXHIBIT P1(A3) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.3.09 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P1 (A4) TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 8.4.09 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P1(A5) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 29.1.09 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P1(A6) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.6.09 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P1(A7) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.10.09 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P1(A8) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P1(A9) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.P&A.I/X/38/SCTIMST/2012 DATED 27.9.2012.

EXHIBIT P1(A10) TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 14.11.2012 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PETITIONER BY THE STAFF UNION.

EXHIBIT P1(A11) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED OP (CAT) NO. 112 OF 2019 6 2025:KER:29781 4.2.2015 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P1(A12) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.6.16 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P1(A13) TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER NO.P&A/IV/PF-1415/SCTIMST/2016 DATED 13.6.2016.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.7.2018.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court