NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION Vs. P RAVINDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions challenge the orders dated 24-7-1998 and 16-6-1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in R. A. No. 10 of 1998 in O. A. No. 1488 of 1993 and O. A. No. 1095 of 19 94 passed respectively.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, leading to the filing of these writ petitions are as under: department of Atomic Energy, Madras Atomic Power Project, a Government of India undertaking, invited applications for the post of ' Stipendiary Trainees' under various categories of employment. Such advertisements were issued in the years 1980, 1982 and 1983. Several candidates were selected and engaged as 'stipendiary Trainees' on consolidated monthly pay. After successful completion of the training period, the trainees were absorbed and appointed in the regular post, viz. Tradesman-B, carrying the regular time scale of pay, and they were also given one or two increments based on their performance during the training period. The Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, issued an Office Memorandum, dated 22-10-1990, whereby it was decided that in case where a person was selected for regular appointment and before formally taking over charge of the post for which selected person is required to undergo training, the training period undergone by such a government servant whether on remuneration or stipend or otherwise may be treated as duty for the purpose of drawing increments. This benefit was granted with effect from 1-10-1990. This was followed by another Office Memorandum dated 31-3-1992 extending the very same benefit to the government servants who have undergone such training on or after 1-1-1986, but the benefit of counting the period for pay was made admissible on notional basis with effect from 1-1-1986 and the actual benefit was given with effect from 1-10-1990. Acting on the aforesaid office memoranda, the members of the Tamilnadu Atomic Power Employees Union as well as some individual employees of the Madras Atomic Power Station, who were initially engaged as Stipendary Trainees and subsequently absorbed and fitted in the regular posts carrying the time scale of pay, made several representations to the authorities concerned to treat their period of training as duty period for the purpose of grant of increments, but there was no consideration of their representations. The aggrieved employees were therefore constrained to file an application, O. A. No. 1095 of 1994, before the Tribunal, seeking the relief that the period of training undergone by the stipendary trainees before absorption in regular time scale of pay of Tradesman is to be counted as duty period for the purpose of increments. The Tribunal, relying on the Office Memorandum bearing Ref. 16/16/89 Estt-Pay. I dated 30-8-1994 and the order dated 11-11-1996 in O. A. No. 1488 of 1993, allowed the original application and directed the respondents concerned to grant the benefits of the said office memorandum to the employees concerned. A review application, R. A. No. 10 of 1998, was filed by the Nuclear Power Corporation/madras Atomic Power Station, to review the order dated 11-11-1996 passed in O. A. No. 1488 of 1993. The Tribunal, however, rejected the review application. Aggrieved, Nuclear Power Corporation/madras Atomic Power Station have filed the above writ petitions challenging the order dated 24-7-199 8 in R. A. No. 10 of 1998 and the order dated 16-6-1997 in O. A. No. 1095 of 1994.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner corporation submitted that under Fundamental Rule 26, the service rendered during the training period can be counted only if the employees are appointed in a substantive vacancy and drawing the time scale of pay. In the present case, the respondents concerned were selected as trainees only. During the training period they were paid a consolidated pay of Rs. 550/- per month and no regular time scale of pay was given to them. Therefore, the training period of two years cannot be counted for the purpose of grant of increment.