I C A R Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted.

(2.) THE appellant is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is engaged in the research of agricultural, animal husbandry, fishery, etc. having network of research institute in different parts of the country. It is aggrieved by the judgment dated Aug. 26, 1996 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad ('Tribunal' for short) allowing the petition of the respondent, a scientist working with the appellant. Tribunal directed the appellant to consider the case of respondent for promotion to the higher grade of Scientist (senior scale) from the year 1987 on the basis of five yearly assessment scheme in existence at that time and if found fit to promote him and to fix his pay in the revised scale of pay introduced as per proceedings dated 9/03/1989 notionally and to make him actual payment in that scale on the basis of above fixation from 13/01/1990 when he was actually promoted to that grade. A further direction was that the respondent be paid arrears of salary, if any, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.

(3.) THE respondent gave his option to be covered under the new Scheme by his letter dated 8/06/1989 but it was with the rider that the option was subject to the clarification in regard to his career advancement after consideration of the five yearly assessment which was in vogue in the year 1987 when he became eligible for consideration for the next higher grade. THE new Career Advancement Scheme had come into effect by Office Memorandum dated Oct. 28, 1991 with retrospective effect from 1/01/1986 as stated earlier. Respondent went on study leave from Sept. 13, 1989 to Nov. 30, 1993. On his joining duty an office order dated 17/03/1994 was issued placing him in the next higher grade of Scientist (senior scale) in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-5000 w.e.f. 13/01/1990 under the new Career Advancement Scheme as under the new Scheme he was to have eight years of service in Scientist S-1 grade. THE respondent represented that his case be considered for promotion on the basis of earlier five yearly assessment when he completed the service of five years in the year 1987, to promote him on that basis and to fix his pay in the revised pay scale. Since there was no response to the representation this led to the filing of the petition before the Tribunal which, as stated above, was allowed.