Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Ara Kalaimaran vs Clri on 5 December, 2024
1 OA No. 662/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00662/2021
Dated this, the 5th day of December Two Thousand Twenty Four
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, Member (J)
HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, Member (A)
Ara. Kalaimaran - 10887, S/o. P. Arangasamy,
Principal Technical Officer Grade (III) 7,
CSIR - Central Leather Research Institute,
Chennai 600020. .....Applicant
By Advocate M/s. K. S. Govinda Prasad
Vs.
1.Union of India,
Rep by the Director General,
CSIR, Anusandhan Bhawan,
2, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Marg,
New Delhi 110001.
2.The Director, CSIR-CLRI,
Sardar Patel Road, Adyar,
Chennai 600020.
3.The Controller of Administration,
CSIR - Central Food Technological Institute,
Mysuru 570020.
4.Professor Ram Rajasekeran,
Professor and Head,
Department of Microbiology,
Central University of Tamil Nadu,
Thiruvarur 610005. ....Respondents
By Advocate Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC (R1-R3)
2 OA No. 662/2021
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Sisir Kumar Ratho, Member(A)) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) To call for the records/files relating to the impugned order bearing no.
FT-12 (352)/2017/E-II dated 28.4.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent herein quash the same as non-est in the eye of law and thus render justice;
(ii) To call for the records/files relating to the impugned order unsigned bearing no. 25(56)/2020-E1 dated 01.10.2020 issued by the 1 respondent herein quash the same as non-est in the eye of law and thus render justice;
(iii) To consequently issue suitable directions to the 1st respondent herein to promote the Applicant to the post of Senior Technical Level Officer Grade III w.e.f. 20.08.2013, the date on which he reached the zone of consideration for promotion to the above said post by creating a supernumerary post of Senior Technical Level Officer Grade III w.e.f. 20.08.2013, for the Applicant in the respondent CSIR-CLRI organization with attendant, service, monetary benefits attached to the above said post and to consequently revise the pay of the Applicant and to pay the resultant monetary arrears arising out of such promotion and refixation within a short date that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal and thus render justice;
(iv) To consequently issue suitable directions to the 1st respondent organization herein namely CSIR-CLRI, Chennai to award a cost/compensation of a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to the Applicant on account of the untold mental agony suffered by him at the hands of the 1st respondent herein and to recover the same from the salary of Dr. Ram Rajasekharan the 4th respondent herein and thus render justice;
(v) To award cost for these proceedings to the Applicant and thus render justice;
(vi) To pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
2. The facts of the case as submitted by the Applicant, are as follows, in brief:-
2.1. The applicant initially joined the respondent department on 20.08.1998 as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil), Grade III (4) and he is 3 OA No. 662/2021 presently working in CSIR - CLRI, Chennai as Principal Technical Officer / Senior Superintending Engineer, Gr. III (7).
2.2. While he was working at CSIR-Central Food Technological Research Institute, Mysore, in his representation dated 12.04.2019 addressed to the 1st respondent herein he had alleged malafides against Dr. Ram Rajasekaran, former Director of CFTRI, Mysore, who is the 4th respondent herein since the applicant was deliberately failed in the first chance by the said Director though he had scored as two Outstanding, two Excellent during the relevant Assessment period, and the result was predetermined by the said Dr. Ramrajasekaran.
2.3. The applicant has given a table regarding his APAR for the period 2008-2009 to 2018-2019. The same is as under :-
2008-2009 Excellent Awarded by CFTRI Communicated in time 2009-2010 Outstanding -do- -do-
2010-2011 Outstanding -do- -do-
2011-2012 Excellent -do- -do-
2012-2013 Good Awarded by Dr. Ram Never communicated
Rajasekharan
2013-2014 Good Awarded by Dr. Ram Never communicated
(April 2013- Rajasekharan
Aug. 2013)
2013-2014 Excellent Awarded by CLRI Never communicated
(Sep. 2013-Mar.
2014)
2014-2015 Very Good -do- Communicated after 5
years
2015-2016 Very Good -do- Communicated after 4
years
2016-2017 Very Good -do- Communicated after 3
years
2017-2018 Very Good -do- Communicated after 2
years
2018-2019 Very Good -do- Communicated in time
4 OA No. 662/2021
2.4. It is submitted that the respondent CSIR-CLRI ought to have a supplied to him a copy of the APAR for the respective years, got his acknowledgement and asked for his comments. Such an exercise was not at all done by the respondent CSIR-CFTRI for the period 2012-13 & 2013-14 and CSIR-CLRI for the period September 2013 to March 2014 herein and it has resulted in great miscarriage of justice to the Applicant for the reason that he was not promoted to the next higher level of Principal Technical Officer / Sr. Superintending Engineer, Gr. III (7) on 20.08.2013 when he reached the zone of consideration.
2.5. The Applicant states that had the respondent CSIR-CLRI furnished the copy of the APAR for the respective years then and there, the Applicant would have had a chance to rectify the mistake if any that had occurred in performance of his duties and that he would have appealed to the 1st respondent herein against his APAR remarks who is the appellate authority.
The non-communication of the APAR for the respective years to the Applicant by the respondent CSIR-CLRI is a serious flaw in the promotion policy of the above said organization and the failure on the part of the respondent herein to do such an exercise but also the above action offends Article 21 relating to Right to Life which is enshrined under the above said Article since the Applicant was denied the benefit of holding the promotional post when he reached the zone of consideration. 5 OA No. 662/2021 2.6. The applicant was issued with the impugned order dated 28.4.2017 rejecting his request for promotion with effect from 20.08.2013 which was issued by the 3rd respondent herein. Since there was no further progress pursuant to his representation dated 02.08.2019, he filed O.A. No. 310/00173/2020 before this Tribunal. By order dated 5.2.2020 made in O.A. No. 310/00173/2020 this Tribunal disposed of the above O.A., with a direction to the competent authority, i.e., the first respondent to consider the representation of the applicant dated 02.08.2019 on the basis of the relevant rules and regulations and pass a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of four months. By an order dated 1.10.2020, the Applicant was informed that his request for promotion has been rejected. 2.7. The Applicant states that he was due for promotion to the next higher level post of Principal Technical Officer Grade (III) 7, and he came within the zone of consideration for the above post during the period 2016-2017. By order dated 3.5.2021, the Applicant was granted promotion to the above said post of Principal Technical Officer Grade (III) 7, the Applicant was granted the said promotion with retrospective effect from 20.08.2016 and his pay was fixed accordingly.
2.8. Aggrieved by the impugned rejection orders dated 28.4.2017 and 01.10.2020, the applicant has filed this OA.
3.1 The respondents have filed their reply opposing the relief prayed by the applicant. It is submitted that the Assessment Promotion of Group III 6 OA No. 662/2021 Technical employees of CSIR, from one Grade to the next higher Grade is governed by the provisions of Revised Merit and Normal Assessment Scheme (Revised MANAS) effective from 01.04.1992. Revised MANAS has been framed under the provisions of Bye Law 11 of CSIR Rules. Regulations and Bye-Laws. The same has been duly approved by the Governing Body of CSIR and the President of CSIR. The Assessment Promotion of Group III employees of all 37 constituent National Laboratories/ Institutes is carried out by respective National Laboratories/ Institutes.
3.2. It is submitted that the Assessment Promotion is made on the basis of Flexible Complementing and the promotion from one Grade to the next higher Grade is effected in-situ and the post held by him/her stand upgraded automatically as personal to the technical employee concerned. On vacation of the post by the Technical employee, it reverts to the grade in which the post was earmarked initially.
3.3. The respondents have indicated the constitution of Assessment Committee for Group III (6) as per Rule 4.3 of the Revised MANAS as under:
Chairman Specialist Member of RC Common to all
Committees
Member Director/DG, CSIR or his
nominee
Member Expert from related area from a
sister CSIR Lab.
Member Three Experts of whom at least
two from outside CSIR system
7 OA No. 662/2021
3.4. It is submitted that the area-wise Assessment Committee is a high profile Committee consisting of experts in the area of the Technical employee concerned. All candidates who become eligible for assessment based on their residency year as given in Rule 2.2.3 of the Revised MANAS, in an Assessment Year, are assessed by the expert Assessment Committee on the basis of the work done by the Technical employee during the residency period, as given by the candidate in his/her Work Report and interview with the Assessment Committee. The Assessment Committee, after assessing the candidates, in its collective wisdom, awards marks out of 50 to the candidate. Separately, the percentage of marks obtained by the candidate in his/her APAR of each year of his/her residency period is computed and averaged out of 100. This is proportionately reduced to marks out of 50. Thereafter, both the marks obtained in interview out of 50 and the APAR marks out of 50 are added. If the total of both marks is equal to or above the threshold marks given in the Rule 2.2.3 of the Revised MANAS, i.e. 75 marks (65 marks for SC candidates), the candidate is promoted subject to vigilance clearance. Hence, the assessment of candidates is based on the Work Report / performance in the interview with the Expert Assessment Committee and the marks obtained by them in their APAR during the residency period.
8 OA No. 662/20213.5. Once the recommendations of an Expert Assessment Committee is approved by the Competent Authority, after following all procedures & provisions of the Revised MANAS, there is no provision in Revised MANAS to review / reconsider the assessment of the candidate. 3.6. It is submitted that the Applicant was transferred to CLRI on his own request from Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI) Mysuru on 02.09.2013. He was due for Assessment Promotion on 20.08.2013, in the Assessment Year 2013-14 on completion of 5 years residency period in the then scale, for 1st Chance. The Applicant's entire residency period of 5 years i.e. from 20.08.2008 to 19.08.2013 was spent in CFTRI, Mysuru. Hence, his case was considered by CFTRI. The CFTRI, vide its Circular dated 10.02.2017, published a list of candidates who were eligible to be considered for assessment for AY 2013-14 and called for representation, if any. The Applicant, whose name appeared at serial number 02 of the said CFTRI Circular dated 10.02.2017, did not submit any representation against the list. The Applicant subsequently attended the meeting of Assessment Committee at CFTRI on 27.04.2017. The Applicant, thus, attended the meeting of Assessment Committee without any reservation or caveat. The Assessment Committee, after considering his Work Report, performance in interview, awarded him 16.57 out of 50 marks. Separately, the Applicant obtained 42.30 out of 50 marks in APAR. Since the Applicant obtained 58.87 out of 100, he could not be recommended for 9 OA No. 662/2021 promotion by the Assessment Committee, as he could not obtain the threshold marks of 65 required for promotion. The same was communicated to the Applicant by CFTRI vide CFTRI letter No FT.12(352)/2017-Ell dated 28.04.2017.
3.7. The assessment of the Applicant was again taken up for the 2nd chance for the AY 2014-15 due w.e.f 20.08.2014 on completion of 6 years residency period. As the major portion of the residency period i.e from 20.08.2008 to 19.08.2014 was spent in CFTRI, Mysore, the Applicant was asked to submit his Work Report by CFTRI, Mysore vide letter dated 12.01.2018. However, the Applicant vide his letter dated 24.01.2018 requested to consider his assessment in CLRI itself considering his health conditions. The CFTRI, Mysuru vide email dated 30.01.2018 conveyed to the Applicant that the Competent Authority, CFTRI has considered and decided that the Applicant may attend the interview through Skype/VC considering his health condition. The Applicant was also directed to submit his Work Report by 02.02.2018.
3.8. The CFTRI vide letter dated 25.01.2018 had also informed the Applicant that if CFTRI does not receive his Work Report on or before 30.01.2017, his 2nd chance for the Assessment Year 2014-15 would stand forfeited, as per rules. Again, vide its email dated 07.02.2018, the CFTRI directed the Applicant to attend the interview on 09.02.2018 through Skype / VC, failing which, he was informed that his 2nd chance would be forfeited. 10 OA No. 662/2021 3.9. It is submitted that the CLRI too, vide its OM dated 07.02.2018 again directed the Applicant to submit his Work Report immediately and attend the interview through Skype/VC on 09.02.2018. However, the Applicant vide his letter dated 07.02.2018 informed CFTRI that he is not willing to appear for interview due to some personal and family problems. The Applicant did not submit his Work Report nor attended the interview on 09.02.2018.
3.10. In view of the above, CFTRI, Mysuru vide its letter dated 23.02.2018 communicated that the 2nd chance of Assessment Promotion of the applicant for the AY 2014-15 stood forfeited as per the rules, as the Applicant neither submitted Work Report nor attended the interview in spite of several communications to him.
3.11. As per the Revised MANAS, the Applicant was not eligible to be considered for Assessment for the 7th year for Assessment Year 2015-16. Accordingly, he was not considered for assessment for the Assessment Year 2015-16.
3.12. The Applicant vide his letter dated 10.12.2018 requested to permit him to be considered for assessment promotion and attend the interview for Assessment Year 2016-17 at CLRI. The Director, CFTRI acceded the request of Applicant and communicated the same to CLRI vide CFTRI letter dated 11.01.2019. The CLRI, in turn, communicated the same to the Applicant vide OM dated 18.01.2019. Further, the Applicant was asked to 11 OA No. 662/2021 submit his Work Report for the AY 2016-17 as a 3rd chance vide OM dated 05.04.2021. The Applicant was assessed and promoted from STO (3) / Superintending Engineer to Principal Technical Officer / Senior Superintending Engineer, Gr. III (7) w.e.f. 20.08.2016 vide CLRI office order dated 03.05.2021.
3.13. The respondents have denied the allegation of the Applicant that he was not communicated the APAR. It is submitted that the CLRI, re- communicated his APAR grading from 2008-09 to 2018-19, much prior to the date of his Assessment, vide CLRI OM No. 26(3)/2017-El dated 25.01.2021.
3.14. The CFTRI letter dated 28.04.2017 was issued to the Applicant after following due process and in line with the provisions of Revised MANAS and law. Further, the CSIR speaking order dated 01.10.2020 has been issued by the 1st Respondent in compliance of this order dated 05.02.2020 of this Tribunal in OA No.173/2020 filed by the applicant, in a fair and just manner by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA as devoid of merits.
4. Heard both counsels and perused the records.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments in support of the applicant's case :-
12 OA No. 662/2021
i. Judgment dt. 20.01.2015 of the CAT-Principal Bench in OA No. 4452/2013 in the case of Harihar Prasad Das Vs. Shri. Ajay Tyagi (IAS), Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board and anr; ii. Judgment dt. 14.09.2018 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6637-6638 of 2018 in the case of S. Nambi Narayanan Vs. Siby Mathews & ors etc. iii. Judgment dt. 12.05.2008 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7631 of 2002 in the case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & ors etc. reported in 2008 (8) SCC 725.
6. As can be seen from the OA, the applicant has cited primarily the following three grounds for seeking relief :-
i. Gross violation of principle of natural justice by denying reasonable opportunity to the applicant;
ii. Total violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devdutt Vs. Union of India reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725; iii. The respondent no. 1 alongwith respondent no. 4 have inflicted mental agony to the applicant for which he needs to be financially compensated by them.13 OA No. 662/2021
7. On perusal of records, it is seen that the applicant was transferred to CSIR-CFTRI, Mysuru on his own request and that he worked there for little more than 7 years from 12.07.2006 to 30.08.2013. When he was due to promotion in 1st chance, ie., on 20.08.2013, his office ie., CFTRI, Mysuru circulated a list of Technical Officers due for assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14 which included the name of the applicant and he was asked to intimate corrections / omissions, if any, before they are taken for assessment. The applicant did not submit any representation against the list and subsequently also attended the meeting of the Assessment Committee on 20.08.2013 and after due consideration, the Assessment Committee did not recommend his name as he failed to obtain threshold marks of 65% required for promotion for him. In the next year in his 2nd chance, he was asked to submit work report to CFTRI, Mysuru which has not been agreed to by the applicant. He requested for consideration of his work report in CLRI, Chennai which was not allowed by the competent authority as his reckoning period was under CFTRI, Mysuru. Further, the applicant gave a representation that due to his health conditions and his son's examination results, he should be allowed to submit his work report at CLRI, Chennai and attend the interview at CLRI, Chennai which has not been agreed to by the competent authority at CFTRI, Mysuru, but he was allowed to attend the interview through Skype / VC. The applicant, however, neither submitted his work report nor attended the interview. As a result, he was not selected in 14 OA No. 662/2021 the 2nd chance. However, after being allowed by the competent authority, he submitted work report and attended interview at CLRI-Chennai and he qualified on his 3rd chance and got promoted at CLRI, Chennai. All these events would show that he has been given sufficient opportunity to submit his work report and attend the interview meetings. Therefore, it cannot be said that he has not been given enough opportunity and that there is violation of the principles of natural justice.
8. The 2nd ground cited by the applicant is that the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and ors has not been followed. It may be mentioned that Hon'ble Supreme Court in their judgment dt. 12.05.2008 has directed that "The confidential report should be communicated to the public servant and they are to be given an opportunity to improve the performance". In pursuance of this decision, the DoPT, Government of India has issued an OM on 14.05.2009 for maintenance and preparation of the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) and communication of all entries for fairness and transparency in public administration. From the records, it is seen that consequent upon his transfer to CLRI-Chennai, the CFTRI, Mysuru, vide their letter dt. 30.09.2013 has forwarded the APAR dossiers of the applicant pertaining to the period from 20.08.1998 to 26.08.2013 to CLRI, Chennai. There is nothing on record to show whether the APARs were further communicated to the applicant or 15 OA No. 662/2021 not. However, the respondents, in their averment have stated that the APAR gradings from 2008-09 to 2018-19 were re-communicated to the applicant much prior to the date of his assessment. Therefore, it is not confirmed whether the instructions of 14.05.2009 of DoPT was adhered to or not by the respondents. At this stage, we were inclined to follow the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt case by directing the respondent to communicate the 'Good' entry and asking the applicant to make representation for upgradation of his APAR which were to be considered by the competent authority. However, when we see his APAR marks, we realise that no fruitful purpose will be served by this exercise. The APAR gradings were rated on a seven-point scale as per extant guidelines and his total marks on APAR gradings were 42.30 out of 50 which is based on his assessment of 'Good' for the year 2012-13. Presuming that the 'Good' grading is upgraded to 'Outstanding', the total marks for APAR grading will increase by 4.0 marks from 42.30 to 46.30, which will still fall short from the qualifying marks of 65% for promotion for him.
9. The gradings given by the Assessment Committee to the applicant in 2013-14 (non-selected year) and 2016-17 (selected year) is reproduced below for comparison :-
16 OA No. 662/2021
"
Assessment Employee Name Interview CR/APAR Exp. Total Year Marks Marks Marks as Marks (Date of (Out of (Out of per Para (Out of Assessment) 50) 50) 2.3.2 100) 1 2 3 4 5 6 2013-14 Shri. Ara. Kalaimaran 16.57 42.30 ... 58.87 (27.04.2017) 2016-17 Shri. Ara. Kalaimaran 35.85 40.28 .... 76.13 (24.04.2021) "
From the above assessment reports, it is seen that the applicant did not qualify the benchmark criteria in 1st chance primarily due to his poor marks in the interview ie., 16.57 out of 50. It is obvious that he has performed well in the interview in his 3rd chance, ie., 35.85 out of 50, thereby making him eligible for promotion. Therefore, the reason cited that he lost out because of poor APAR gradings given by his Director is not based on facts.
10. The applicant in his relief has also sought for award of cost / compensation from the CSIR - CLRI, Chennai as well as cost towards the proceedings from 1st and 4th respondents for inflicting untold mental agony to him. In this regard, it is seen that the applicant in his representation dt.
02.08.2019 and 25.09.2019 to the Director General, CSIR has contested his non-selection on 20.08.2013 (Assessment Year 2013-14) and this Tribunal , vide its order dt. 05.02.2020 in OA No. 173/2020 has directed the competent authority to consider the representation of the applicant dt. 02.08.2019 and pass a reasoned and speaking order. This has been complied with by the CFTRI, Mysuru vide their OM dt. 01.10.2020. In the present OA, the 17 OA No. 662/2021 applicant, except in general terms, has not brought out any specific instance of malafide by respondents. It is also observed that the Assessment Committee comprises of 7 senior scientists and it is very unlikely to believe that the respondents would have influenced the Assessment Committee comprising of seven senior scientists while making the assessment.
11. Therefore, it is clear that the applicant has been given enough opportunities during processing of his case for promotion and there is no bias or malice on the part of the respondents while denying him promotion in the Assessment Year 2013-14 or allowing the same in Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessments have been carried out in an objective manner following due procedure. In view of this, there is no merit in the case of the applicant. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (Veena Kothavale)
Member (A) Member (J)
05.12.2024
SKSI