JOINT SECRETARY ADMINISTRATION COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH NEW DELHI Vs. S G VEDANAYAGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is filed praying for issuance of writ of certiorari, calling for the order/records of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and to quash the order dated 15. 3. 2005 in O. A. No. 595 of 2004 in so far as it has directed the petitioners to consider the case of the first respondent for promotion to Group III (4) under the provisions of Paras 2. 3. 4 of the Revised MANAS read with letter dated 9. 8. 1996 and to complete the exercise within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

(2.) THE brief facts in this writ petition are that the first respondent was appointed as Mechanic on 12. 3. 1976, which was classified as auxiliary technical without any promotional prospects under Bye-law 71 (b ). In view of the difficulties faced by the employees due to non-availability of promotional prospects, the Normal Recruitment and Assessment Scheme (NRAS) of CSIR was introduced with effect from 1. 2. 1981, which classified the entire Scientific and Technical staff into four Groups, namely, Groups-I and II (support staff), Group-III (Technical), Group IV (R and D Scientific ). The categories of staff, who were not eligible for periodic Assessment Promotion under Bye-law 71 (b), were brought into Grade-I and II under NRAS and the benefit of internal Assessment Promotion was extended to them. The erstwhile Scientific and technical staff under the Bye-law 71 (b), who were entitled for promotion under the said Bye-law, were given option to come over to the new scheme, i. e. , NRAS and they were placed in Group-IV and Group-III under the NRAS scheme as per their qualification. The auxiliary technical staff under the erstwhile Bye-law, who had no promotional avenues were brought under the NRAS Scheme and were placed in Group-II or Group-I as per their qualification and they were entitled for periodic Assessment promotion under the new scheme. The Normal Recruitment Assessment Scheme was superseded by Merit and Normal Assessment Scheme (MANAS) with effect from 1. 4. 1988. The Merit and Normal Assessment Scheme was revised (revised MANAS) with effect from 1. 4. 1992. The first respondent employee was assessed and promoted from time to time under the scheme, which was prevailing at that particular time. The first respondent was placed in Group-II (1) on 1. 2. 1981 under Normal Recruitment and Assessment Scheme and on his completion of 7 years from the date of appointment, he was assessed and promoted to Group-II (2) on 12. 3. 1983. He was again assessed and promoted to Group-II (3) on 12. 3. 1990 after completion of 7 years under MANAS. On 1. 1. 1996, Fifth Pay Commission merged the scales of pay of Group-II (3) and II (4) and hence the first respondent was brought under Group-II (4) from 1. 1. 1996. Meanwhile the first respondent passed Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with Second Class in the year 1995. Therefore, he became eligible for promotion earlier by 2 years as per para 2. 3. 4 of Revised MANAS, which states as follows:-

(3.) AGGRIEVED by such direction of the Tribunal, the present petitioners have filed the writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal stating that the reasoning of the Tribunal is not correct and it is contrary to the Revised MANAS and that the first respondent cannot be given benefit of promotion from Grade-II to Group-III as per para 2. 3. 5 or under para 2. 3. 4 of the Revised MANAS. According to the petitioners, the Tribunal erred in granting the relief to the first respondent by misconstruing the provisions of the Revised MANAS. It is specifically contended that under para 2. 3. 4 of the Revised MANAS promotion to one group to another cannot be granted. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed challenging that portion of the order of the Tribunal granting the relief to the first respondent in terms of para 2. 3. 4 of the Revised MANAS.