CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
BENCH, BANGALORE
TRANSFERRED APPLICATION No.443/2008
DATED THIS
THE TH DAY OF .............. , 2012
HON'BLE
Dr. K.B. SURESH ... MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE
SMT LEENA MEHENDALE ... MEMBER(A)
1. Dr. K. Kesavacharyulu,
S/o Sri
K. Narasimhacharulu,
Aged 51
years,
Senior
Research Officer,
Central
Sericultural Research &
Training
Institute, Sriramapura,
Mysore –
570 008.
2. Dr. A.M. Babu, Aged 47 years,
S/o M.
Ahamed,
Senior
Research Officer,
Central
Sericultural Research &
Training
Institute, Sriramapura,
Mysore –
570 008.
3. Dr. V.N. Sudha,
Aged 51 years,
D/o Sri
V. Narayana Rao,
Senior
Research Officer,
Central
Sericultural Research &
Training
Institute, Sriramapura,
Mysore –
570 008.
4. Dr. R.K. Mishra, Aged 44 years,
S/o Sri
G.D. Mishra,
Senior
Research Officer,
Central
Sericultural Research &
Training
Institute, Sriramapura,
Mysore –
570 008.
5. Smt. K. Jhansi Lakshmi, Aged 40 years,
D/o Sri
Nageswara Rao,
Senior
Research Officer,
Central
Sericultural Research &
Training
Institute, Sriramapura,
Mysore –
570 008. ... Applicants
(By
Advocate Shri N.B. Bhat)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
by
Secretary to Govt. of India,
Ministry
of Personnel, Public Grievances
&
Pensions, (Dept. of Personnel & Training),
North
Block, New Delhi – 110 001.
2. Union of India,
By
Secretary to Govt. of India,
Ministry
of Textiles,
Udyog
Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.
3. Central Silk Board,
(Ministry
of Textiles),
Govt. of
India,
CSB
Complex, BTM Layout,
Madivala-Hosur Main Road,
Bangalore
– 560 068.
By its
Member Secretary. ... Respondents
(By
Advocates S/Shri M.V. Rao, Sr. Central Govt. Stg. Counsel
for R-1
& 2 and N.S. Prasad for R-3)
O R D E R
Hon'ble Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A) :
This T.A has been transferred by the
High Court of Karnataka on 24.10.2008, for which Writ Petition No.27049/2005
was filed before them 20.12.2008. During
the pendency at the High Court, a notification was passed by Govt. of India on
7.5.2008 bringing the Central Silk Board under the jurisdiction of CAT. Hence, this case is being decided by the
present Bench of the Tribunal.
2. The 5 applicants are agitating the
question of grant of ACP.
3. Briefly stated, the applicants were
appointed as Senior Research Assistants (SRA) in Group 'B' on various dates
ranging between 13.6.1983 to 13.2.1992.
Pursuant to the pay revision by V CPC with effect from 1.1.1996, some
SRAs who completed 10 years of regular service as SRA were placed in the higher
pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/- and redesignated as SRO (Senior Research Officers)
. Those who had not completed 10 years
as on 1.1.1996, were given the scale of Rs.6500-10500/- with a stipulation that
they would get the higher scale of Rs.8000-13500/- and designation of SRO when
they complete 10 years (Annexure-'A').
4. Pursuant to this revised pay scales,
the Respondent No.3, i.e., Central Silk Board (CSB), issued orders dated
10.3.1997 produced at Annexures-'B' and 'C' under which the first applicant was
straightaway given the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and the
remaining 4 applicants were given the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- w.e.f.
1.1.1996 and the scale of Rs.8000-13500/- w.e.f. the date of their completion
of 10 years of regular service. The said
orders also gave them the designation of SRO with effect from the date on
which they were given the higher pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/-. Further, a
circular dated 28.7.1999 is at Annexure-'G' was issued to clarify that
there would be no change in their duties and responsibilities and they will
continue to discharge the work they were doing prior to their upgradation.
Applicants claim that the said
upgradation orders also asked for their pay-fixation option. They gave it under FR 22(1)(a)(2).
5. Now, the applicants claim that they are
also entitled to the Scheme of ACP (Assured Career Progression) introduced by
the Government of India by their Memorandum dated 9.8.1999. As they had received the SRO grade in recent
past, they remained under the impression that they were not entitled for ACP,
and hence did not agitate earlier.. The
Respondent No.3, issued a circular dated 27.9.2005 vide Annexure-'J', that the
pay fixation of the applicants had been done under FR 22(1)(a)(2), but, now it
was decided to give them the benefit of fixation under FR 22(1)(a)(1) and give
them one month's time to exercise revised option for pay fixation under FR
22(1)(a)(1).
For the
sake of clarity, we quote FR 22(1)(a)(1) and (2) as under:-
F.R.
22 (1) The
initial pay of a Government servant who is appointed to a post on a time-scale
of pay is regularised as follows:-
(a)(1) Where a Government servant holding a post,
other than a tenure post, in a substantive or temporary or officiating capacity
is promoted as the case may be, subject to the filfilment of the eligibility
conditions as prescribed in the relevant Recruitment Rules, to another post
carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attached
to the post held by him, his initial pay in the time-scale of the higher
post shall be fixed at the stage next above the notional pay arrived at
by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post held by him regularly by an
increment at the stage to which such pay has accrued or (rupees one hundred
only), whichever is more.
Provided that where a Government
servant is, immediately before his promotion or appointment on regular basis to
a higher post, drawing pay at the maximum of the time-scale of the lower post,
his initial pay in the time-scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the
stage next above the pay notionally arrived at by increasing his pay in respect
of the lower post held by him on regular basis by an amount equal to the last
increment in the time-scale of the lower post or [rupees one hundred],
whichever is more.
(2) When
the appointment to the new post dues not involve such assumption of duties
and responbilities of greater importance,he shall draw as initial pay, the
stage of the time-scale which is equal to his pay in respect of the old post
held by him on regular basis, or, if there is no such stage, the stage next
above his pay in respect of the old post held by him on regular basis.
Provided that where the minimum pay
of the time-scale of the new post is higher than his pay in respect of the post
held by him regularly, he shall draw the minimum as the initial pay:
Provided further that in a case
where pay is fixed at the same stage, he shall continue to draw that pay until
such time as he would have received an imcrement in the time-scale of the old
post, in cases where pay is fixed at the higher stage, he shall get his next
increment on completion of the period when an increment is earned in the
time-scale of the new post.
On appointment on regular basis to
such a new post, other than to an ex
cadre post on deputation, the Government servant shall have the option, to be
exercised within one month from the date of such appointment, for fixation of
his pay in the new post with effect from the date of appointment to the new
post or with effect from the date of increment in the old post.
It is the
claim of the applicants that if on granting the designation of SRO, the
Respondents had stated them as promoted to Group 'A' post, then they would be
governed by FR 22(1)(a)(1) right in 1997, and the question reseeking their
option under FR 22 (1)(a)(1) at a later date (i.e., 2005) would not arise. Thus, the applicants came to understand that
they were treated as Group 'B' in 1997 which would also imply that they would
be entitled to the benefit of ACP at the end of 12 years of their service after
entering as SRA. Accordingly, they gave
representations seeking first ACP and these are seen at Annexures-'L','M','N'
and 'O', dated 10.10.2005. These
representations were rejected by the impugned order No.CSB-65(1)/2005-ES.II,
dated 17-11-2005 at
Annexure-'P'. While issuing this order,
the CSB has relied on the Office Memorandum issued by DoP&T on 18.07.2001
in which a similar issue regarding ACP has been clarified. Hence, the prayer to set aside the order
dated 17.11.2005 and for directing Respondent No.3 to give the benefit of 1st
ACP to the applicants on completing 12 years of service.
6. In response, the respondent CSB had
clarified their stand by the following points.
(a) As per the CSB Rules, SRA and SRO are two
separate cadres and SRO is a promotional post for which SRA is the feeder
cadre. Both are technical posts
involving similar technical knowledge and similar technical responbilities with
the distinction that SRO also has a supervisory and adminstrative duties and
authorities. Both the cadres are stagnating
cadres and SRAs would normally take 15 years or more to become SROs. The impact of stagnation being more on the
SRA cadre, the CSB, in consultation with the Ministry of Textiles, declared it
as a dying cadre and decided not to make any fresh recruitment to the cadre
whenever any vacancy arose on account of promotion or retirement of SRA. The replacement scale for SRA in the V Pay
Commission would have been Rs.4500-7000/-.
However, in view of this stagnation, they were given the scale of
Rs.5500-9000/- and in addition a still higher scale of Rs.8000-13500/- was
granted to those who would complete 10 years as SRAs. This earlier placement to the cadre of SRO
would help the CSB to get over the SRA cadre earlier. Therefore, according to the Respondents,
giving them the scale of Rs.8000-13500/- at the end of 10 years of SRA post is
equivalent to giving them early promotion to the regular SRO cadre and
therefore, the first ACP which is introduced by way of a Scheme on 9.8.1999 is
not applicable to them.
(b) As far as the argument that there was no
change in the duties and responsibilities of the 5 applicants and similarly
placed SRAs, the respondents have clarified that their usual set-up was to have
one SRO assisted by a group of 3-4 SRAs.
However, when the SRAs were also given the designation of SRO, at the
end of 10 years, it led to some administrative problems, especially in regard
to the question of who would supervise whom.
Hence, it became necessary to state that they would continue to have the
same technical duties and responsibilities as before. These, in fact, would
also be the technical duties and responsibilities of the other SROs who have
risen through a proper promotion. The
difference will be only in respect of their administrative functioning,
because, every SRO working in that unit cannot be declared as the Head of
Office responsible for supervision, etc.
(c)
The applicants are trying to make an attempt to
show that the upgraded SROs are lower in grade to the promoted SROs. The fact is that all the SROs whether
promtoed against vacancies earlier or upgraded on completion of 10 years'
service fall in the same cadre, enjoy same status, perks, seniority benefits,
etc., except that in a Unit where there are more than one SRO, the senior-most
will be the in-charge Officer. As
regards the choice of pay fixation under FR 22(1)(a)(2), the respondents admit
that the applicants were informed by way of circular dated 22.9.2005, that
their pay would br fixed under FR 22(1)(a)(1) which is the superior benefit,
but this does not affect the applicants in any adverse way. On the contrary, they have benefitted by it
in a positive direction and it is incorrect to say that the opportunity to
exercise revised option under FR 22(1)(a)(1) implies that they were earlier in
Group 'B' service. In view of this, the
respondents have clarified that these SROs who have received upgradation at the
end of 10 years cannot be distinguished from those SROs who had earlier
received their promotion from SRA to SRO in due course of 12-15 years. Therefore, neither of them will be eligible
for the first ACP after 12 years of service counted from the date they joined
as SRA. However, all will be eligible at
the end of 24 years for second ACP, if the stagnation at SRO level continues.
7.
We have considered the pleadings of both the
counsels including the rejoinder and heard them at length.
8.
We see no justification in the claim of the
applicants. The respondents, faced with
the situation of a stagnating cadre have tried to give maximum benefit to those
belonging to the SRA cadre by giving them promotion much before they would
otherwise have got. Moreover, allowing
them first ACP would be a patent discrimination against those SROs who have earlier
received their regular promotion as SRO and cannot be given the ACP. Thus, the question would not be restricted to
sanction of 1st ACP only to the present 5 appicants, but, to the
entire cadre of more than 300 SROs and would also lead to further litigation by
the remaining cadres of the CSB. The
claim for first ACP of the applicants who have received the benefit of higher
pay scale at the end of 10 years itself and are also enjoying all the perks and
status as SRO cannot be taken as just and fair.
We would reiterate that apart from the snowball effect that it will have
on all cadres of CSB in the long run, it would also be a patent discrimination
in the short run, against those SROs who have come to be SROs by way of regular
promotion after a higher waiting period and who now cannot be given the ACP
benefit.
9.
The OA is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.
(LEENA
MEHENDALE) (K.B.
SURESH)
MEMBER
(A) MEMBER (J)
psp.
No comments:
Post a Comment