T.R.MANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench made in 2003 dated 14.10.2004 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent herein made in No.EP-13[16]/T3-ECD-1 dated 31.05.2002 after calling for the records and direct the 2nd respondent herein to extend the scheme of five yearly assessment for promotion on merit to the petitioner and advance increment in conformity with Dr.Ramamurty's Reviewing Committee report which has already been extended to ICMR Scientific Staff with effect from 01.01.1990 and consequently pay the arrears of salary and to grant promotion to the petitioner in conformity with Rule 8 of the Department of Health [Group 'A' Gazetted Non-Medical Scientific and Technical Posts] Insitu Promotion Rules, 1990 with effect from 01.01.1990 and pay the arrears of salary with interest.

(2.) The petitioner 's representation to the 2nd respondent was rejected in its order dated 31.05.2002 and he challenged the same before the Central Administrative Tribunal [herein after referred to as CAT] in 2003. The Tribunal also dismissed his application confirming the order of the 2nd respondent. The same is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

(3.) The facts in brief are that, the 2nd respondent namely, Indian Council of Medical Research [herein after referred to as ICMR] was constituted under the aegis of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which controls the entire institution with regard to the service conditions and administrative matters of the employees. Though it is an autonomous body, it is under control of the 1st respondent. ICMR has two major categories of staff, namely, [a] Scientific Staff and [b] Technical Staff. The petitioner was promoted as Senior Technical Officer on 30.01.1985 and have been serving in that post for about 20 years till his retirement. The governing body of the 2nd respondent made a reference to the Dr.Ramamurty Committee to review the organisational set up, personnel policies and service conditions of ICMR staff, in the light of policies and practices prevailing in other agencies such as CSIR, ICAR, etc. The said Committee recommended in 1985 that the ICMR must speedily implement the five yearly assessment scheme for both Scientific and Technical staff. On approval of the governing body of the 2nd respondent, Integrated Recruitment and Assessment Scheme [herein after referred to as IRAS] was implemented for the Scientific Staff with retrospective effect from 01.07.1984. As far as Technical staff are concerned, the 2nd respondent did not implement the said scheme. Thus, the respondents were discriminating the Technical staff in implementing IRAS. Pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Writ Petition moved by non-medical wing in the Ministry of Health, Insitu Promotion Rules, 1990, was brought into force from 15.11.1989. The said rule is applicable to organisations attached or subordinate to the Health Department and therefore, ICMR will also be covered by the said rule. The difference between the scope of Dr.Ramamurty Committee recommendation and Insitu Rules is that, in the former, there is scope for promotion and latter, there is scope for up gradation of pay scales. As per the direction of this Court in W.P.No.12800 of 1997 moved by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent informed by its order dated 05.10.1999 that the petitioner is not entitled for consideration under the five yearly assessment scheme and he is being considered under Assured Career Progression [herein after referred to as ACP] scheme. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner approached the CAT in O.A.No.543 of 2001. The Tribunal following the Principal Bench CAT, New Delhi, directed the 2nd respondent to consider the application of Dr.Ramamurty's Committee recommendation of assessment scheme from the date, when the same was made applicable to the Scientific staff and also to consider the application of Insitu Promotion Rules, 1990. The respondents without any application of mind, summarily rejected the claim of the petitioner by order dated 31.05.2002. Against that order, the petitioner moved the Tribunal in of 2003 and the Tribunal also dismissed the application by confirming the order of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition.