Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr. Rajesh Kapur vs Union Of India on 17 July, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-2276/2013
MA-1752/2013
Reserved on : 16.07.2014.
Pronounced on : 17.07.2014.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
1. Dr. Rajesh Kapur,
Scientist G
Department of Biotechnology,
Ministry of Science & Technology,
Block-2/CGO Complex, Lodi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
2. Dr. (Mrs.) Suman Govil
Scientist G
Department of Biotechnology,
Ministry of Science & Technology,
Block-2/CGO Complex, Lodi Road,
New Delhi-110003. . Applicants
(through Sh. R.K. Kapur, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India, through the Secretary,
Department of Biotechnology (DBT)
Ministry of Science & Technology,
Block-2/CGO Complex, Lodi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,
(Department of Personnel & Training),
Govt. of India, New Delhi. . Respondents
(through Sh. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) The applicants of this O.A. are Scientists working with respondent No.1. They are aggrieved by the fact that under the Flexible Complementary Scheme (FCS) they have been promoted from Scientist-F to Scientist-G w.e.f. a date, which was subsequent to the date of their eligibility. They made several representations in this regard on 18.12.2006, 11.07.2012 and 09.08.2012. However, their representations have been rejected, the last rejection being on 13.03.2013. Hence, they have filed this O.A. seeking the following relief:-
(a) direct the respondents to grant the benefit of FCS to the Applicants No.1 and No.2 by suitably modifying the dates of in-situ promotions in the in the scientific grade G antedating the same from the dates when the eligibility period was completed from the same by the respective applicants, and their cases were recommended by the Department of Biotechnology (respondent no.1) i.e. w.e.f. 1.1.2005 (forenoon).
b) Protection/restoration of seniority of Applicant No.1 and 2 w.r.t. the date recommended for promotion by DBT (respondent no.1) and w.r.t. Dr. R.R. Sinha, Dr. Renu Swarup and Dr. S.R. Rao (listed at Sr. No.v.vi and vii at Page Nos 29-32)
c) Grant of all consequential financial benefits in terms of refixation of pay w.e.f. 01/01/2005 which was the date recommended for promotion by DBT (respondent no.1) for both Applicants No.1 and 2.
d) Accord approval for paymet of applicable arrears w.e.f. 01/01/2005 onwards to Applicants No.1 and 2.
e) direct the respondents to maintain uniformity in respect of all the candidates with due regard to seniority.
f) Any other relief/order which this Honble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the applicants and against the respondents.
2. The contention of the applicants is that they completed the required residency period as Scientist-F on 01.01.2005. They were duly assessed by an Assessment Board on 01.12.2004. However, they were granted in situ promotion as Scientist-G only w.e.f. 05.10.2006 despite the fact that even one of their junior Dr. R.R. Sinha, who was assessed by the same Assessment Board, was granted promotion w.e.f. 30.08.2005 i.e. on a date prior to the date of promotion of the applicants. The applicants have contended that under the FCS, promotions have to be given w.e.f. the date of eligibility if the concerned Scientist is found suitable for such promotion by the Assessment Board. However, in their case, their promotion has been given from a later date despite the fact that the Assessment Board as well as the Department had recommended their promotion from the due date i.e. 01.01.2005.
3. In the reply filed by the respondents, the basic averments of the applicants have not been denied. The respondents have stated that the departmental Assessment Committee had recommended grant of promotion to the applicants w.e.f. 01.01.2005 and accordingly proposal was submitted to the ACC. However, the orders of promotion were issued in accordance with the approval of ACC. Further, they have stated that the representations made by the applicants were considered in consultation with DoP&T, who rejected their case. The respondents have also contended that the applicants have not impleaded Dr. R.R. Sinha, who is junior to them, as a party and the O.A. needs to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties.
4. We have heard both sides and have perused the material on record. During arguments, learned counsel for the applicants stated that this case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in OA-1111/2012 pronounced on 27.09.2013. A copy of this judgment has been annexed as RA 1. The respondents counsel also did not dispute that the instant case is covered by the aforesaid judgment. We have gone through this judgment and we find that the issue involved in this O.A. is similar to the issue involved in OA-1111/2012. We also notice that while delivering this judgment, this Tribunal had relied on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of UOI & Anr. Vs. S.K. Murti dated 02.05.2011. The applicants of this O.A., therefore, deserve the same benefit as was allowed to the applicants of OA-1111/2012.
4.1 As far as the objection of the respondents that this O.A. needs to be dismissed for non-joineder of necessary parties is concerned, we do not find it to be sustainable. This is because under the FCS in situ promotions are granted on completion of prescribed residency period irrespective of seniority. In fact, in the instant case, even the junior Dr. R.R. Sinhas promotion would have to be revised by the respondents as he was not promoted from due date.
5. We allow this O.A. and direct that the applicants will be entitled to the same benefit as was granted to applicants of OA-1111/2012. This benefit will be extended within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Vinita/