Original Application No. 345 of 2008, Misc. Application No. 320/2010. Case: 1. Dr. R. L. Sharma S/o B. D. Sharma, 2. Dr. B. S. Rathore S/o H. S. Rathore, 3. Dr. K. P. Mallick S/o Jagdev Lal Mallick, 4. Dr. Greesh Mohan S/o Tej Pal, 5. Dr. I. V. Mogha S/o R. B. Mogha, 6. Dr. Murari Lal S/o Ram Charan Saraswati, 7. Dr. B. D. Gupta S/o Chaturbhuj Das Gupta, 8. Dr. Alakhdeo Narayan S/o Munshi Singh Vs 1. Union of India, Through Secretary (DARE) and Director General, ICAR, New Delhi, 2. Director (Personnel), I.C.A.R., Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberOriginal Application No. 345 of 2008, Misc. Application No. 320/2010
JudgesV. K. Bali (Chairman) & L. K. Joshi (Vice Chairman)
IssueAdministrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19; Right to Information Act, 2005
Judgement DateMay 24, 2011
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment:

V. K. Bali (Chairman), (Principal Bench New Delhi)

  1. Dr. R. L. Sharma and seven others have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 calling in question orders/letters dated 9.2.2007 and 20.2.2007 vide which the applicants have not been given simultaneous assessment for antedating their promotion to Scientist S-2, and consequential merit promotion to the next higher grade of Scientist S-3. The prayer made in the Application is to set aside the orders aforesaid and in consequence of that, to implement their order dated 26.6.1995 in respect of granting simultaneous consequential benefit by way of merit promotion to the applicants to S-3 grade, as has been done in the case of other similarly placed over 200 scientists, and give all consequential benefits including pay/pension re-fixation, pensionary benefits, etc. Even though, the prayers made in the OA are as mentioned above, the crux of the matter is full implementation of the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.246/1996 on 29.11.1999. Whereas, the case of the applicants is that in view of the judgment of this Tribunal they have to be simultaneously promoted as Scientist S-2 and S-3 grades, the respondents would contend that after the applicants were promoted as S-2, their service record of five years thereafter has to be seen for their promotion to S-3 grade, and it is only if they are found fit on the basis of their record that they have to be so promoted. The respondents further state that they are prepared to consider the case of the applicants for promotion to S-3 grade, but for that submission of assessment form by the applicant in the prescribed proforma is necessary, whereas, the applicant are insisting upon to be promoted on the basis of the same record on the basis of which they were promoted to S-2 grade.

  2. The facts on which the reliefs as mentioned above are sought to rest reveal that subsequent to formation of Agricultural Research Services with effect from 1.10.1975, the post of Junior Class 1 Scientist and Assistant Research Officer (Class-II position) a common designation of Scientist S-1 was given by the respondents. In the process anomalies in seniority of the applicants and erstwhile JROs vis-'-vis AROs occurred. Consequent to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Dr. M. L. Lodha & others v Union of India [CWP No.1192/84 dated 5.3.1987], large number of similarly placed Scientists were granted antedation of their promotion as Scientist S-2 effective from 1.7.1976 vide orders dated 27.12.1988, 28.12.1988, 7.2.1989 and 16.3.1995. Subsequently, consequential promotion to next higher grade of Scientist S-3 was granted in terms of the policy decision dated 26.6.1995. The applicants were, however, not granted analogous benefits. Constrained, they filed OA No.1948/1995 and OA No.246/1996 before this Tribunal, wherein they prayed for grant of analogous benefits. Order dated 29.11.1999 came to be passed by the Tribunal in OA No.246/1996 in the case of applicant Dr. R. L. Sharma, whereby the respondents were directed to consider the case of the applicant for promotion from S-1 to S-2 grade. Operative part of the order aforesaid reads, thus:

    7. Having considered the aforesaid arguments and the pleadings on record, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary for the purpose of relief sought for by the applicant to go into the question as to the date of appointment of the applicant. The main grievance of the applicant is that certain persons whose names have been mentioned in paragraph 4.7 of the O.A. and who were admittedly appointed as S-I on dates subsequent to that of the applicant in 1975, have been promoted to S-II grade earlier to the applicant. The dates of joining/appointment to SI grade of these Scientists begin with Dr. J. R. Rao (1.7.1978), Dr. H. C. Malviya (1.7.1976), Dr. M.N. Malhotra (25.9.1976), Dr. V. K. Srivastava and Dr. Ravi Chandra (1.7.1976), which are later than the date admitted by the respondents of the appointment of the applicant, namely, 18.12.1975. In case any of these have been considered for promotion from S-I to S-II earlier to the applicant then obviously the applicant has a cause for grievance.

    8. In view of the abovementioned position, we are inclined to dispose of this O.A. with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for promotion from S-I to S-II grade from the earliest date from which any of the aforementioned officers had been so promoted. If the applicant is promoted as S-II and on that basis promoted to still higher grade, he will be entitled to all consequential benefits except monetary benefits in respect of backwages.

    It is the case of the applicants that when the respondents would not implement the order dated 29.11.1999, the applicants were constrained to file contempt petitions bearing CP No.19/2001 in OA No.246/1996 and CP No.24/2001 in OA No.1948/1995. These contempt petitions were disposed of on 31.7.2001 with directions to the respondents to implement the order dated 29.11.1999. Subsequently, the Tribunal issued suo moto contempt notice. The contempt petitions were, however, finally dismissed and notices to alleged contemnors were discharged. The respondents filed a misc. application with an affidavit dated 9.10.2001 and stated that the applicants were to be assessed by the ASRB by following the same procedure as was followed in case of other scientists. It is also the case of the applicants that the respondents circulated a policy decision dated 26.6.1995 regarding grant of consequential benefits of assessment in favour of scientists whose promotion to S-2 grade was antedated w.e.f. 1.7.1976, analogous to the applicants. The said policy decision stated that the assessment and re-assessment wherever applicable would be carried out for the period on date 31.12.1981, 31.12.1982, 31.12.1983, 31.12.1984 and 31.12.1985, and it has, therefore, been decided to carry out the assessment as well as re-assessment, wherever applicable, of all the concerned scientists simultaneously. Finally, the respondents considered the applicants and issued orders dated 10.1.2002 and 2.7.2002, wherein the competent authority declared the applicants unfit for promotion. The decision aforesaid was questioned by the applicants by way of another OA No.1784/2004, which was decided on 2.6.2005, wherein it was held that the action of the respondents was de hors the rules and the applicants were being denied their due promotion even though, they had been recommended by ASRB. It is the case of the applicants that as per order dated 29.11.1999, their juniors have been promoted to S-2 grade prior to the applicants, yet the applicants are being denied promotion for undisclosed reasons. A writ came to be filed before the High Court of Delhi challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 2.6.2005, which was dismissed. It is then the case of the applicants that the respondents half-heartedly complied with the orders of the court, and vide order dated 28.3.2006 instructed to antedate promotion of eleven scientists including the applicants w.e.f. 1.7.1976, but despite that the applicants are yet to receive pension arrears, difference in commuted value of pension and revised latest pension order to bank etc. It is pleaded that the respondents have not monitored prompt execution of their order dated 28.3.2006 within the time limit accorded by Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 15.2.2006. Subsequently the applicants made representation dated 15.9.2006 seeking information under RTI Act regarding delay in extending consequential benefits and procedures adopted in the past for antedating consequential promotion to similarly placed scientists. It is pleaded that three decades old past performance records were factually submitted in May, 2002, a few weeks before re-assessment, on 4.6.2002, and the records were forwarded by IVRI and ICAR authorities to ASRB after verification of entries as correct, in respect of assessment periods and posts etc. on Part-I of the document. On 21.5.2002, the Joint Director (Research) and Director IVRI endorsed their positive recommendations in Part IV and V of the document. The respondents confirmed that the said special re-assessment dated 4.6.2002 was in compliance with court orders, and also stated that the assessment for grade S-3 for the period 1976 onwards was not strictly as per ARS Rules, but based on directions of the court under special circumstances. As regards consequential benefits, based on simultaneous assessment of three decade old material, 1975-83, submitted in May, 2002, the respondents, it is pleaded, have overlooked the self-speaking title of the document 1975-83, besides foot note instructions recorded on part V of the said records, and that they have overridden court directions and ICAR policy decision on simultaneous assessment, and further that they are yet to execute their orders in respect of consequential merit promotion to S-3 grade. It is further pleaded that time and again, the respondents were approached to communicate the rule position/court order that empowered/authorized them for evaluation/assessment of three decade old past performance material 1975-83. These records were time and again assessed (in case of applicant Dr. R. L. Sharma on 10.7.1984, 18.8.1987 and 4.6.2002) and were positively recommended by the ASRB, but the respondents are mute on this issue. ASRB and ICAR authorities were requested to communicate the bare facts under RTI Act, 2005, that authorized them to repeatedly insist on submission of fresh material for the period 1.7.1976 to 31.12.1985 (nine and half years) against factual residency period of five years (1.7.1976 to 31.12.1980) without disclosing ASRB findings/recommendations on assessment material for the period 1975-83 submitted in May, 2002. As per the case set up by the applicants, evidently it implies to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT