JIJU K Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These original petitions arise out of the common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A. Nos.661/2017 and 679/2017. In this judgment, for the sake of clarity, the parties are referred to as they appear before the Tribunal and the documents referred to are as they are marked in OA No.661/2017.

(2.) The applicants before the Tribunal are Group-A officers holding scientific and technical posts in the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (hereinafter referred to as 'C-DAC'). The Government of India in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions had introduced a scheme known as 'Flexible Complementing Scheme' (hereinafter referred to as 'FCS') for scientists and other technical officers in Government Departments. On 10-09-2010, on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission the existing FCS scheme was modified and instructions regarding the implementation of this modified scheme (hereinafter referred to as the 'Modified Flexible Complementing Scheme' or 'MFCS') were issued. The office memorandum dated 10-09-2010 is on record as Annexure-A6. A reference to Annexure-A6 will show that the intent and purpose of FCS was to ensure that time-bound promotions are granted to scientists in various scientific organizations to keep their morale high and to motivate them and also to stop the flight of talented scientists from Government organizations involved in research and scientific activities. The scheme essentially provided that after the completion of a minimum residency period (hereinafter referred to as the 'MRP') in a scale/grade the officer would be considered for promotion/up-gradation in the next higher grade/scale. Annexure-A6 provided that the assessment of an officer has to be completed in 3 stages. In the first stage, the officer concerned would prepare an annual work report for the period in question (self-appraisal). The annual work report and the annual performance rating of the officer concerned would then get reviewed by a Screening Committee which will include one external member. The report of the Screening Committee together with the connected records would be then placed before an Assessment Board with a majority of external members. Clause 2 (ii) of Annexure-I forming part of Annexure A6 O.M dated 10-09-2010 indicates the scope of review by the Assessment Board in the following terms:

(3.) The case of the applicants in both the original applications before the Tribunal were taken up for consideration under MFCS. On the assessment of their annual work reports etc for the relevant MRP, the Screening Committee gave them a substantially good report. The external committee recommended their promotion only at MRP+1 meaning thereby that they would be considered for promotion/upgradation in the next higher grade under FCS not at the end of the minimum residency period required for promotion/upgradation under the FCS but, only on the completion of one year after the minimum residency period. In other words, if the minimum residency period prescribed for a particular up-gradation was 4 years, they would get promoted or placed in the higher grade only at the expiry of 5 years. It may be noticed herein that so far as the applicant in OA No.661/2017 is concerned he became eligible for the first up-gradation in 2012 and the second up-gradation in 2016 (up-gradation from Scientist-C to Scientist-D and Scientist-D to Scientist-E). The effect of the finding of the External Committee that he was entitled to be promoted only at MRP +1 resulted in his first upgradation being delayed for one year beyond 2012 and consequently pushing his right to be considered for the second up-gradation also by a period of one year. In so far as the applicants in OA No.669/2017 are concerned they obtained their first up-gradation under FCS in 2011 and were concerned with the second up-gradation to which they were eligible to be considered on completion of 4 years after their promotions in 2011, i.e. in 2015. They were also recommended for promotion/up-gradation only at MRP+1. The Tribunal having considered the matter found the C-DAC itself had admitted to several mistakes in the assessment of its officers for promotion/upgradation under FCS and had directed a review of the recommendations made by the External Committee in respect of the applicants in both the cases before the Tribunal (Annexure A-1 dated 31-07-2017).