Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Dr Rajiv Rai vs M/O Environment And Forests on 6 January, 2023
Subject : Promotion O.A.No. 200/00492/2013 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH JABALPUR (1)Original Application No.200/00492/2013 Jabalpur, this Friday, the 6th day of January, 2023 HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Dr. Rajiv Rai, S/o Late M.M. Rai, aged about 55 years, working as Scientist 'E', Tropical Forest Research Institute, P.O. RFRC, Mandla Road, Jabalpur Pin - 482021, R/o 5/17, New Forest Colony, P.O. RFRC Mandla Road, Jabalpur - 482021
-Applicant (By Advocate - Shri S P Rai) Versus
1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, Paryavaran Bhawan, 'B' Block, C.G.O. Complex, Phase-II, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
2. Director General, Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education, P.O. New Forest Dehradun, Uttarakhand, Pin - 248006
3. Director, Tropical Forest Research Institute, P.O. RFRC, Mandla Road, Jabalpur (M.P.) 482021
- Respondents (By Advocate- Shri S K Mishra) (Date of reserving order: 07.12.2022) Order By Shri Kumar Ramesh Chandra, AM.
This Original application has been filed by the applicant seeking direction to the respondent department to consider the case of applicant regarding the promotion claimed by the applicant in various designations and grades w.e.f. due dates as per policy.
Page 1 of 9
Subject : Promotion O.A.No. 200/00492/2013
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Scientist 'SC' on 17.06.1991 in the pay scale of 2200- 4000/- Central Service Group 'A'. The applicant got 1st Promotion as Scientist 'SD' w.e.f. 01.01.1998 in the pay scale of Rs. 10000/- to 15,000 (revised). The applicant availed 2nd promotion as Scientist 'D' w.e.f. 01.01.2004 in the grade of Rs. 12,000-375-16,500/- after a period of 6 years, whereas, minimum residency period was four years as per revised policy. The applicant was further granted 3rd promotion from the post of Scientist 'D' to 'E' Group A (Scientist Post) w.e.f. 14.10.2011 in the pay scale of Rs. 37,400-67,000/- plus grade pay Rs. 8700/- which ought to have been granted w.e.f. 01.01.2011. That, some of the similarly placed Scientists have been granted promotion from due date as per policy and residency period therein. Under the said circumstances, one junior of the applicant has been granted benefit of promotion from earlier date and he has become senior to the applicant. The applicant being aggrieved, submitted representations claiming promotion in various designations and grades w.e.f. the due date as per policy, but the respondents did not accept the same.
3. The respondents have filed their reply, wherein it has been submitted by the respondents that the applicant is not entitled for any relief as claimed in the Original Application as this O.A. is barred by limitation prescribed under section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Page 2 of 9 Subject : Promotion O.A.No. 200/00492/2013 Act. The respondents submits that the applicant was promoted to scientist 'SC' (now Scientist 'B') to Scientist 'SD' (now Scientist 'C') vide notification dated 08.09.1998 and serial no. given in that notification was not seniority based and that notification was misinterpreted by the applicant. The respondents further submit that the applicant, on completion of 4 years of residency period in the grade of scientist 'C' as prescribed under rules in 2001, was considered for upgradation to the grade of scientist 'D' as on 01.01.2002. The screening committee, duty constituted by the DG, ICFRE, screened him out as on 01.01.2002 in its meeting as he could not secure prescribed percentage of marks i.e. 85% in ACRs. Copy of recommendation of screening committee is enclosed as Annexure R/1. On completion of one year, the applicant was again considered for up gradation to the grade of scientist 'D', as on 01.01.2003, by the screening committee in its meeting dated 11.02.2003, as he could not secure prescribed percentage of marks i.e. 80% in ACRs, therefore, the screening committee screened him out. Thereafter, on completion of one year he was again considered for review/assessment as on 01.01.2004 in accordance with ICFRE (Group 'A' (Scientist Posts) Rules, 2001. This time he was recommended for upgradation. Accordingly as per recommendation of the DRC, he was upgraded to the grade of Scientist 'D' w.e.f. vide order dated 21.05.2004 (Annexure R/3). It has been further submitted by the respondents that all Page 3 of 9 Subject : Promotion O.A.No. 200/00492/2013 the scientists mentioned in the order dated 21.05.2004 are upgraded from the same date and are not linked to seniority in any manner, in fact the promotions of scientists are neither inter-se-seniority linked nor vacancy based, but these are strictly based on merit of the individual scientist. The respondents further submit that on completion of prescribed four years residency period, in the Grade of Scientist 'D' the applicant was considered for review/assessment from the grade of Scientist 'D' to Scientist 'E' as on 01.01.2008 and 01.01.2009 simultaneously in accordance with ICFRE Group 'A' (Scientific Posts) Rules, 2001, but since he could not secure minimum prescribed percentage of marks in ACRs/APARs, the screening committee screened him out as on 01.01.2008 and 01.01.2009 (Annexure R/4). After one year of being screened out, he was again considered for review/assessment as on 01.01.2010 and he was screened in by the Screening committee for level II assessment as required under the Rules for interview by the DRC, but he failed to secure the minimum marks prescribed percentage of marks in interview, therefore, the DRC did not recommend him for in-situ up gradation to the next higher grade under FCS of the ICFRE as on 01.01.2010 (Annexure R/5). Meanwhile, the Rules were amended w.e.f. 01.01.2011 and notified vide notification dated 24.08.2011. On completion of one year, the applicant was again considered for review/assessment as on 01.01.2011 in accordance with ICFRE Group Page 4 of 9 Subject : Promotion O.A.No. 200/00492/2013 'A' (Scientist Posts) Rules, 2011. Thereafter, on recommendation of Internal Screening Committee, duly constituted by the DG, ICFRE, the applicant was upgraded to the grade of Scientist 'E' w.e.f. 14.10.2011 vide notification dated 17.10.2011 (Annexure R/7). Thereafter, as per DOP&T vide OM No. AB-14017/36/2011-Istt (RR) dated 21.09.2012 clarified that retrospective promotions are not permissible, therefore the promotion of the applicant along with other scientist were made effective from 14.10.2011. Subsequently, in compliance to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, MoEF & CC issued direction abide OM No. 09.12.2012-P.III, dated 24.05.2013 for antedating promotions (Annexure R/9) and DG, ICFRE order dated 15.10.2013 (Annexure R/10), the applicant along with other scientists were antedated from their due dates vide order dated 06.01.2015 (Annexure R/11). Accordingly, the upgradation of the applicant was antedated from 14.10.2011 to 01.01.2011 on notional basis with payment of arrears as per directions of the Ministry. The respondents in their reply further submits that the anti- dating of promotion of Dr. R.K. Verma along with consequential benefits was given vide order dated 05.07.2012 in compliance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 1104/2010, 169/2011 & 170/ 2011, and on the direction of the Ministry and not on an outcome of the decision of Hon'ble CAT, Allahabad Bench in O.A.No.1843/2010, Dr. Shamila Kalia Vs UoI and others. In case of the applicant, the anti-dating Page 5 of 9 Subject : Promotion O.A.No. 200/00492/2013 has been done as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and instructions of the Ministry.
4. The applicant has also filed rejoinder and written submissions, wherein it has been submitted that the cause raised by him has recurring effect on his career and this Hon'ble Court has already entertained and allowed similar applications under similar facts and circumstances. He further submitted that he was screened out by the screening committee in 2001 and same was done in the year 2003 relying upon the rules of 2001 which is highly arbitrary and illegal as no criteria was adopted or mentioned and copy of promotion rule 2001 is not enclosed in the support and also no comparative chart/analysis has been enclosed or demonstrated by the respondents, which is an integral part and parcel of DPC and no adverse ACRs have been communicated to the applicant and submitted that if no criteria is specified then the criteria of seniority shall prevail. The applicant submitted that he came to be promoted as Scientist D from Scientist C on the basis of recommendations of DRC, w.e.f. 01.01.2004, whereas he ought to have been promoted on the said post w.e.f. 01.01.2001. The respondents have not disclosed the reasons for convening a review DPC and the circumstances that ensued his belated promotion. The applicant further submitted that he was further victimized by the respondents by not recommending him for promotion from Scientist D to Scientist E. The respondents have again not Page 6 of 9 Subject : Promotion O.A.No. 200/00492/2013 recommended him and made a remark no yet fit for upgradation. It seems arbitrary to him as no adverse ACRs were ever communicated to him and he also acquired many academic appreciations. He further submitted that later he was promoted to the post of Scientist E, w.e.f. 14.10.2011 and submitted that he was entitled for such promotion w.e.f. 01.07.2005. He also submitted that the respondents have not disclosed the recommendations of DPC and demonstrated the criteria adopted for such promotion. The respondents also submitted that promotion of Shri R K Verma, w.e.f. 01.07.2010 who was promoted to the post of Scientist E w.e.f. 01.07.2007 in view of the order passed in O.A. No. 1104-1009 in 2010 and O.A. No. 169&170 of 2011 passed in the light of order of Supreme Court in WP(C) No. 6864/2011 dated 02.05.2011 couple with directions of Ministry of Environment & Forest. Late on said Shri R K Verma & Dr. V K Varshney came to be promoted as Scientist F by order dated 21.08.2012. The applicant was also entitled for such promotion w.e.f. the said date 21.08.2012.
5. This Tribunal has considered the matter and also perused the documents annexed herewith.
6. While merit has to be recognised and rewarded, advancement in an officer's career should not be regarded as a matter of course, but should be earned by dint of hard work, good conduct Page 7 of 9 Subject : Promotion O.A.No. 200/00492/2013 and result-oriented performance as reflected in service record, and based on strict rigorous selection process. Confidential Reports are the basic inputs on the basis of which assessment is to be made by each DPC. The evaluation of CRs should be fair, just and non- discriminatory. Hence, the DPC should assess the suitability of the employees for promotion on the basis of their Service Records and with particular reference to the service records and with particulars, irrespective of the qualifying service prescribed in the Service/Recruitment Rules.
7. The DPC shall determine the merit of those being assessed for promotion with reference to the prescribed benchmark and accordingly grade the officers as 'fit' or 'unfit' only.
(i) Only those who are graded 'fit' (i.e. who meet the prescribed benchmark) by the DPC shall be included and arranged in the select panel in order of their inter-se seniority in the feeder grade.
(ii) Those officers who are graded 'unfit' (in terms of the prescribed benchmark) by the DPC shall not be included in the select panel. Thus, there shall be no supersession in promotion among those who are graded 'fit' (in terms of the prescribed benchmark) by the DPC.
Page 8 of 9
Subject : Promotion O.A.No. 200/00492/2013 The DPC shall assess the suitability of the government servants coming within the purview of the circumstances mentioned above along with other eligible candidates.
8. After having considered all the facts in its entirety, this original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
VK/-
Page 9 of 9