Kerala High Court
K.Gopinatha Pillai vs Union Of India on 9 September, 2020
Bench: A.M.Shaffique, P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 18TH BHADRA,
1942
OP (CAT).No.184 OF 2016(Z)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 518/2013 DATED 15-02-2016 OF CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS 1 TO 3 AND 5:
1 K.GOPINATHA PILLAI
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNA PILLAI, MES 109046 REFRIGERATION
MECHANIC (HS) (RETD.) RESIDING AT
SHANMUGHAVILASOM, EZHAKADAVU.P.O., CHERUKOLE,
MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA.
2 P.A. RAVINDRAN
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. AYYAPPAN, MES 109023 REFIGARATION MECHANIC
(HS) (RETD.), RESIDING AT PADANNAKKARI HOUSE,
KUMBALANGHI.P.O., COCHIN-682007.
3 G. VIKRAMAN
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. GOVINDAN, A-6626625 REGRIGERATION MECHANIC
(HS) (RETD.) RESIDING AT VISMAYA PARAVOOR.P.O.,
PUNNAPRA NORTH-680014.
4 T.V. JOSEPH
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. VARKEY, MES 109054 REFRIGERATION MECHANIC
(HS) (RETD.) RESIDING AT THOTTUMKATHARA HOUSE,
OP(CAT) No.184/2016
-:2:-
KONTHURUTHY, THEVARA.P.O., COCHIN-682013.
BY ADVS.
SMT.S.SINDHU
SRI.S.SHARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS 4 AND 6:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY
OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
NEW DELHI-110001.
2 SOUTHERN COMMAND CHIEF ENGINEER
PUNE-411001.
3 THE CHIEF ENGINEERN (NW)
KOCHI-682004.
4 COMMAND WORKS ENGINEER (NW)
KOCHI-682004.
5 GARRISON ENGINEER(I) MES E/M (NS)
KATARIBAGH, KOCHI-682004.
6 ENGINEER IN CHIEF
ARMY HEADQUARTERS, DHQ PO, NEW DELHI-110001.
7 P.N. SIVARAMA PILLAI
S/O. NARAYANA PILLAI, NES 237854 REGRIGERATION
MECHANIC (HS) (RETD.) NELPURAYIL HOUSE,
EZHAKADAVU.P.O., CHEUKOL, MAVELIKKARA-690104.
8 S.M. SULAIMAN
S/O. SYED MOHMED, MES 144271 (REFRIGERATOR
MECHANIC-RETD) RESIDING AT RAHI MANZIL,
MANGARAM MSM/PO),
PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA-689501.
R1-6 BY SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC
R7-8 BY ADV. SMT.JESSY S.SALIM
R9 BY ADV. JESSY S.SALIM
OP(CAT) No.184/2016
-:3:-
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. P. SANTHALINGAM-SR. ADV.
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-08-2020,
THE COURT ON 09-09-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(CAT) No.184/2016
-:4:-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 9th day of September, 2020 Shaffique, J.
The petitioners are applicants in OA No. 518/2013. They have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal inter alia seeking for a direction to grant the 2 nd ACP w.e.f. 5/2/2007. It is inter alia contended that all the applicants joined service as Mazdoors during the period between 1968 and 1972. After qualifying the requisite trade test, they were posted as Motor Pump Attender (MPA) on different dates and later on qualifying the trade test, they were posted as Refrigeration Mechanic which post was re-categorized as Refrigeration Mechanic H S. All of them had retired from service.
2. The contention urged was that all the applicants/petitioners were placed to skilled category as on 1983 after qualifying promotion tests. According to them, since 1981, the category of MPA and Refrigeration Mechanic were upgraded as per Government Order dated 6/11/1987 and therefore the OP(CAT) No.184/2016 -:5:- applicants were entitled for 2nd ACP w.e.f. 5/2/2007 when they completed 24 years of service in the scale of pay `5000-150- 8000. It is contended that their placement from unskilled category to skilled category was not a promotion but a re- classification. In such an event, they were entitled to get financial upgradation by ACP after completion of 12 years from skilled category, that is from 5/2/1988.
3. In the objection filed by the respondent, it was contended that the applicants were promoted from the post of Mazdoor (unskilled) to different categories like MPA/Refrigeration Mechanic and therefore they were not eligible for the 2 nd ACP in the pay scale `5000-150-8000, whereas they were given the 2nd ACP on completion of 24 years service in the pay scale `4000- 100-6000. It is contended that those who were appointed in the skilled category alone were eligible for the 2 nd ACP in the pay scale `5000-150-8000.
4. The Tribunal after considering the respective contentions found that the industrial personnel have been grouped into five distinct grades on the basis of degree of skill based on the trade and responsibility. In so far as each category starting from OP(CAT) No.184/2016 -:6:- unskilled is having a distinct pay scale, different from the other categories in an incremental order, and when it is seen that after the trade test, they were all placed in a different pay scale, it would suggest that the same was a promotion on each occasion. It was therefore found that it is not a case of re-classification or re-categorisation until they reached HS II. In the said circumstances, the claim was rejected.
5. Before this Court, a counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the first applicant was promoted to the post of MPA on 5/2/1979 on his qualifying the required trade test. Again he was promoted to the post of Refrigerator Mechanic w.e.f 8/1/1985 since he qualified in that trade test. He was not appointed in the skilled category nor was reclassified after appointment in the skilled category. He was therefore not eligible for the 2 nd ACP in the scale `5000-150-8000. But was granted 2nd ACP in the scale of `4000-100-6000 w.e.f. 9/8/1999. Same was the position in respect of the other applicants/petitioners. It was also stated that the applicants received effectively only one promotion from the unskilled category to skilled category. Their promotion from semi skilled OP(CAT) No.184/2016 -:7:- category (MPA) to skilled category (Refrigeration Mechanic) had been ignored. That is the reason for having granted them 2 nd financial upgradation in the scale `4000-100-6000 w.e.f. 9/8/1999.
6. Though it was strenuously argued by the learned counsel for petitioners placing reliance on Annexures A-VI, A-VII and A-IX, we do not think that any of the above orders would render any assistance to the petitioners. None of the petitioners were appointed in the skilled category. Therefore their appointment from unskilled category to skilled category was by way of promotion in a different scale of pay and there was no stagnation. The 2nd ACP was granted after ignoring one promotion as per Annexure VI. It is evident that there are five distinct grades having different scale of pay and in such circumstances, when the Tribunal had arrived at a conclusion based on sufficient material, which has been clarified by the respondents, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that similarly placed persons were given the benefit which they have claimed. First of all, each case will have to be decided on its own OP(CAT) No.184/2016 -:8:- facts. At any rate, we are not bound by an undue benefit given to an individual based on a wrong order. Even otherwise, if a person is appointed in a skilled category, he was eligible to get the 2 nd ACP at a higher scale of pay, which is not disputed by the respondents.
In the result, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. This Original Petition is hence dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
Rp JUDGE
OP(CAT) No.184/2016
-:9:-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
15/2/2106 IN O.A.NO.518/2013 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.518/2013 ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES.
EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 30/01/2012 IN O.A.NOS.689/2010 AND O.A.861/2010 OF THE C.A.T., ERNAKULAM. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF EXTRACT OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 19/5/2009 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TOGETHER WITH EXTRACT OF TEMRS AND CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR MACPS EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDL. REPLY STATEMENT IN O.A.NO.518/2013 FILED BY RESPONDENTS.
ANNEXURE A-V A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO-
85610/47/ACP/IND(3)SCHEME/CSCC DATED 2- 2-2010 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A-I TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE ORDER NO-91026/EIC/8810(WEII)DTD 6-11-1987 ANNEXURE A-II A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 23-3-2010 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANTS TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A-111 A A TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DTD 28-11-2012 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST APPLICANT ANNEXURE A-111(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE OP(CAT) No.184/2016 -:10:- DTD.28-11-2012 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND APPLICANT ANNEXURE A-III(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DTD.28-11-2012 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD APPLICANT ANNEXURE A-III(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DTD.28-11-2012 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 4TH APPLICANT ANNEXURE A-III(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DTD.28-11-2012 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 5TH APPLICANT ANNEXURE A-III(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DTD.28-11-2012 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 6TH APPLICANT ANNEXURE A-IV A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.17-12-2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE LAWYER EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE A-VI A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO-
85610/47/ACP/CMD/CSCC DTD 8/10/2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A-VII A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO-132501/29- A/PGL COPY /980.E1B DTD 25-10-2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A-VIII A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-6- 2011 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO-1475/2004 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ANNEXURE A-IX A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE CLARIFICATION EXHIBIT P2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH ANNEXURES OP(CAT) No.184/2016 -:11:- ANNEXURE A-X A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 16-6-2012 OF GARRISON ENGINEER (NS) KOCHI ANNEXURE AXI A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE AREA SENIORITY LIST PUBLISHED BY THE CW,KOCHI AND THE COMPARATIVE STATEMENT EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFORESAID OFFICE MEMORANDUM DTD 9/8/1999 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPARATIVE STATEMENT SHOWING THE SCALE GRANTED TO PETITIONERS JUNIORS AND SENIORS.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER DTD.24/6/1987 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER DTD.11/5/1985 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1 A TRUE COPY OF PAY SCALE DETAILS OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT R1 B TRUE COPY OF PAY SCALE DETAILS OF THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT R1 C TRUE COPY OF PAY SCALE DETAILS OF THE 3RD PETITIONER EXHIBIT R1 D TRUE COPY OF PAY SCALE DETAILS OF THE 4TH PETITIONER