Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Bhadran A J vs M/O Agriculture on 15 January, 2019
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/01079/2017
Tuesday, this the 15th day of January, 2019
Hon'ble Mr. E.K. Bharat Bhushan, Administrative Member
Hon'ble Mr.Ashish Kalia, Judicial Member
A.J.Bhadran, Retd.,
Technical Officer, T-6, ICAR-CPCRI
Regional Station, Krishnapuram P.O
Kayamkulam, Kerala 690 533 ..... Applicant
(By Advocate - Mr.R.Rajasekharan Pillai)
Versus
1 The Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR)
Represented by the Secretary Krishi Anusandhan Bhavan
PUSA, New Delhi - 110 012
2. The Director, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute (CPCRI)
Kasargode - 671 124
3. The Assessment Committee for Technical Personnel
Category III represented by its Chairman the 2nd respondent
Central Plantation Crops Research Institute
Kasargode - 671 124
4. The Agricultural Recruitment Board
Represented by its Chairman
Krishi Anusandhan Bhavan
PUSA, New Delhi - 110 012 ..... Respondents
(By Advocate - Mr.P.Santhosh Kumar)
This Original Application having been heard and reserved for orders on
10.1.2019, the Tribunal on 15.1.2019 delivered the following:
2
ORDER
Per: Mr.E.K.Bharat Bhushan, Administrative Member Original Application No.180/01079/2017 is filed by Mr.A.J.Bhadran, Retd. Technical Officer, T-6, ICAR-CPCRI. The reliefs sought in the Original Application are as follows:
" I. Direct the respondents 2 to 3 to constitute the selection committee for the purpose of assessing the applicant's eligibility for Asst. Chief Technical Officer and Chief Technical Officer T-9 as expeditiously as possible and confer him all the monetary benefits, if not the pay and allowances.
II. Direct the respondents to re-compute the pension and pensionary benefits on the premises that the applicant has been promoted to the post of Asst.Chief Technical Officer w.e.f 1.1.2009 and further he is promoted to the post of Chief Technical Officer in the T-9 grade w.e.f 1.1.2013 and disburse him all the consequential benefits as expeditiously as possible.
III. Direct the 3rd respondent to consider Annexure A-2 and pass appropriate orders forthwith. "
2. Applicant is a reitred employee of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR for short), which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act,1860, controlled by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. He had joined the Organisation as T-II-3 staff in 1983. In 1987, he was promoted as T-4 Technical Staff and further to T5 Technical Officer w.e.f 1.1.1995. In accordance with Technical Service Rule, 1975, as modified on 3rd February 2000, career advancement of technical personnel in their respective categories has been provided. This envisaged a system of 3 merit promotion from one grade to the next higher grade irrespective of the occurrence of the vacancies in the higher grade. In the said notification it is stated that all personnel working in T5 grade will be eligible for assessment promotion to T6 grade on completion of 10 years service in T5 grade, provided such technical personnel possesses the qualifications prescribed in the said notification for direct recruitment to category II (T3). The applicant was considered for promotion to the post of T6 grade on completion of 5 years by the Assessment Committee (Category II Artist) and he has been granted three advance increments w.e.f 1.1.2000. Thereafter he was again considered for promotion for the grade of T6 on completion of five years further. But in view of certain increments that had already been granted to him earlier, same have been unilaterally withdrawn. In the meanwhile, applicant has become eligible for ten yearly assessments as per para 6.4(b) of the Technical Staff Rules, 2000 w.e.f 1.1.2005. The applicant represented his case through a petition dated 14.7.2010, but no action was taken. The case of the applicant is that he was eligible for upgradation to T-6 on completion of 10 years as on 1.1.2005. But the respondents for one reason or other, refused to consider his case despite his eligibility for further promotion on completion of ten years as T5. Hence, he filed O.A 190/2012 before this Tribunal and the same was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to convene the assessment committee within three months. As the respondents informed the applicant about his ineligibility for getting promotion, applicant approached this Tribunal again by filing 614/2012. 4 Ultimately, same was disposed of by directing the respondents to consider applicant's representation. Aggrieved by the same, applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court and the High Court was pleased to direct the respondents to convene a review DPC. Accordingly, he was given assessment promotion after his retirement in November 2015, ex post facto, with effect from 1.1.2005 as Technical Officer T6. Next assessment promotion is to the grade of T-7 on completion of four years service in T6. 3 Applicant maintains that he was eligible for further grades of T7, the the posts of T-7 and T8 being amalgamated into a single grade T(7-T8) by way of replacement and the feeder category for assessment promotion T6 with four years service. T(7-T8) is known as Assistant Chief Technical Officer (ACTO for short). It is submitted that on conferment of ex post factor promotion to T6 w.e.f 1.1.2005, the applicant should have been assessed for further promotion, which has not been done, because he retired by the time T6 was conferred on him. He ought to have been considered for ACTO grade in 2009. He further claims that he is eligible for T9 grade as well.
4 Respondents have filed their reply statement wherein it is stated that in view of the category barrier and lack of academic qualification, the applicant was not eligible for direct entry from T5 to T6 grade. However, after completion of 10 years service in the grade of T-5, his case was considered for merit promotion to the grade of T6 in Category III and as the committee 5 found him not fit for promotion, granted three advance increments. On further scrutiny, it was noticed that the applicant had been awarded six advance increments in the grade of T-5 and hence the competent authority had withdrawn the advance increments w.e.f 1.1.2005. Applicant was given assessment promotion after his retirement in November 2015, ex post facto, with effect from 1.1.2005 as Technical Officer T6. The only difficulty in considering the applicant for promotion to T6 had been the difficulty in getting technical experts to function as Assessment Committee. It is pointed out that several efforts have been made for identifying such experts but with little success. Respondents further state that soon after the receipt of willingness from available experts, the meeting shall be convened at the earliest. Respondents submits that they have not deliberately delayed the assessment of the applicant. As per MTSR, the applicant is due for next promotion of ACTO with effect from 1.1.2010 after completion of 5 years in T-6. Further promotion in the higher grade is CTO and requires 7 years of service. They state that since the applicant had retired on 30.11.2015, he is not eligible for further consideration of promotion to CTO. Respondents go onto state their difficulties in getting subject experts and to get it approved from ASRB New Delhi so as to convene the Assessment Committee Meeting at the earliest.
5 We have heard Shri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.P.Santhosh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
66 This is the third round of litigation. Applicant had retired in 2015 and T6 promotion was conferred on him by way of ex post facto. Respondents have conceded their inability to appoint subject experts in Assessment Committee for granting promotion in time. With the facts before us, we feel that it will be adequate if we direct the respondents to vigorously search for appropriate individuals to staff the Assessment Committee and take a decision on the eligibility of the applicant for further promotions. This order has to be complied with by the respondents within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. The Original Application is disposed of as above. No costs.
(ASHISH KALIA) (E.K.BHARAT BHUSHAN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
sv
7
List of Annexures
Annexure A1 - True copy of the application to enlargement of time
nd
filed by the 2 respondent in OP(CAT) No.116/2015
Annexure A2 - True copy of the representation dated 4.4.2017
submitted by the applicant beforethe 2nd respondent Annexure A3 - True copy of the applicant's application under the RTI Act and its reply dated 10.8.2017 from the 2 nd respondent and english transilation.
Annexure R2(a) - True copy of the Council's letter No.18-1/97 Estt.IV dated 03.2.2000 Annexure R2(b) - True copy of the Council's letter No.19(10) 2004- Estt.IV dated 24.2.2006 Annexure R2(c) - True copy of the letter F.No.4(158)3/2015-Estt., dated 5.5.2017 Annexure R2(d) - True copy of the letter F.No.4(158)3/2015- EsttI/4934 dated 7.1.2017 Annexure R2(e) - True copy of the letter F.No.4(158)3/2015- EsttI/4932, dated 7.1.2017 Annexure R2(f) - True copy of the letter F.No.4(158)3/2015- EsttI/4933, dated 7.1.2017 Annexure R2(g) - True copy of the letter F.No.4(158)3/2015-EsttI/102 to 110, dated 28.6.2017 Annexure R2(h) - True copy of the letter F.No.4(158)3/2015-EsttI/77 to 82, dated 21.12.2017 Annexure R2(i) - True copy of the letter F.No.4(158)3/2015-EsttI/10 to 17, dated 2.11.2017 ...