NATABAR MOHANTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is applicant in O.A. No. 237 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench has filed this writ application challenging the judgment and order dated 22/7/2004 passed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid case.

(2.) Grievance of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that great injustice has been done by not giving him proper fitment in terms of the Technical Service Rules of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research which came into effect from 1/10/1975 and that he has been discriminated in this regard and juniors to the petitioner have been allowed to enjoy higher scale of pay and better service benefits under the said Rules. Further case of the petitioner is that he joined in service under the opposite parties as Field Assistants in the scale of pay of Rs. 110-200/- and was promoted to Grade of Senior Field Assistant with effect from 1.7.76. Shortly before his promotion, in the year 1975 the opposite party-Organisation was declared as a Society and the Technical Service Rules of ICAR were brought into effect from 1/10/1975. Petitioner who was applicant before the Tribunal was included at the initial constitution at T-I level and fitted in T-2 of Category I in the scale of Rs. 330-560/- and thereafter fitted in T-2 grade. Technical Service Rules of ICAR were amended on 27/1/1979 prescribing the alternative qualification of "Matriculate with ten years' experience in the relevant field for Field/Farm Technicians in Category II posts. Though amendments were made applicable to all the existing employees, the petitioner was not given the benefit of the said amendment and was not fitted in T-II-3 of category-II. Again on 28/2/1980 certain clarifications were issued with regard to the applicability of the alternative qualification of the existing staff as on 1/1/1977. The petitioner made representation to the opposite party-Organisation, but no action was taken on the said representation after the clarifications were issued. When the matter stood thus, the order in Annexure-10 was issued by the opposite party-organisation removing the category bar between Category-I and Category II. Further case of the petitioner is that for subsequent merit promotion from T-II-3 to T-4, the service rendered in T-1-3 will count towards computation of five years of service for merit promotion. Claim of the petitioner by virtue of the letter dated 1,2,1995 is that he was entitled to be fitted in higher grade and the same having not been done, they had submitted representation. Subsequently he was given the benefit but the same was not given effect from 1/10/1975 though he is entitled to be fitted T-II-3 earlier than the dates he was given. With the above grievances the petitioner approached the Tribunal. After perusal of the petitioner's case as well as the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite party-organisation, the Tribunal in the impugned judgment dismissed the Original Application on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Director, Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack and Anr. v. Khetra Mohan Das reported in 1994 Suppl. (3) SCC 595,

(3.) At the time of hearing of the case Sri G.N. Padhi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Khetra Mohan's case was reconsidered in the case of Bibhuti Bhusan Nayak and others in Civil Appeal No. 6673 of 1997 and the Apex Court in the said judgment held as follows: The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Director, Central Rice Research Institution, Cuttack and Anr. v. Khetra Mohan Das 1994 Suppl.(3) SCC 595, wherein it has been laid down- Viewed from any angle it is clear that when these rules came into force person in Grade T-I-3 of category-I (pay scale Rs. 425-700) would be entitled to be inducted in Grade T-II-3 of Category II provided he possessed the necessary qualifications prescribed for category-II in the case of the respondent can be only as per Rule 7.2 and not by way of induction as claimed by the respondent. In view of the said decision of this Court the direction given by the Tribunal that the respondents be placed in category II-T (IV) in the pay scale of Rs. 550-900 with effect from October, 1, 1975 cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. The respondents will however, entitled to be considered for promotion in the said Category II-T(IV) in the pay scale of Rs. 550-900 after fitment in the pay scale of Rs. 425-700 with effect from October, 1, 1975 under the Rules of 1975. It was further contended by Sri Padhi, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the above judgment of the Apex Court having not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal, this Court should take note of the aforesaid decision as well as the circular issued by the opposite party-organisation pursuant to the aforesaid decision in Annexure-9. Learned Counsel for the opposite party-organisation, on the other hand, submitted that the stand taken in the counter-affidavit which has been accepted by the Tribunal in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Khetra Mohan Das be upheld as the petitioners are not entitled to the claim.