Disposed

Sri. Jayakumar C.K v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research

Kerala HC5 Jul 2016OP (CAT)/162/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court assessed a petitioner's challenge to a Tribunal order regarding eligibility for T4 pay scale from appointment date. The Court noted a competent authority order but chose not to fix the retrospective date, leaving it to the Tribunals competent authority within three months.

What did the court decide?

O.P. disposed of; direction to competent authority to consider merit and decide retrospective date within three months.

Sri. Jayakumar C.K Vs Indian Council of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2016/14TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶7

OP (CAT).No.162 of 2016 (Z)

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 1216/2012 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 15-01-2016

¶9

PETITIONERS :

¶10

JAYAKUMAR C.K PROGRAMME ASSISTANT (COMPUTER) (T3), KRISHI VIGYAN KENDRA, PERUVANNAMUZHI, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPICES RESEARCH, (INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH), P.O.MARIKUNNU, CALICUT-673 012.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.P.M.BINOY KRISHNA

¶12

RESPONDENTS :

¶13

INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPICES RESEARCH, (INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH), P.O.MARIKUNNU, KOZHIKODE-673 012.

¶15

THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPICES RESEARCH, (INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH), P.O.MARIKUNNU, KOZHIKODE-673 012.

¶16

UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶17

OP (CAT).No.162 of 2016 (Z)

¶18

KANNAN S. FARM MANAGER (T-3), KRISHI VIGYAN KENDRA, PERUVANNAMUZHI, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPICES RESEARCH, (INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH), P.O.MARIKUNNU, CALICUT-673 012, RESIDING AT SCT/MST QUARTERS, D3-5, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.

¶19

R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.A.VINOD, CGC R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SC, ICAR R BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R BY SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J.

¶20

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

OP (CAT).No. 162 of 2016 (Z)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :-

¶24

-------------------P1 COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DTD.15.1.2016 IN OA NO.1216/2012. P2 COPY OF THE OA NO.1216/2012 BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. P3 COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN OA NO.1216/2012 FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. P4 COPY OF THE REJOINDER IN OA NO.1216/2012 FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. P5 COPY OF THE MA 180/843/2015 IN OA NO.1216/2012 FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. P6 COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.29.2.2016 MADE IN OA NO.835/2013 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL.

¶26

True copy

¶27

P.A to Judge

¶28

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶29

-----------------------------------------------------------------O.P.(CAT)No.162 of 2016

¶30

-----------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 5^th day of July, 2016

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶33

Challenge is against Ext.P1 order dated 15.1.2016, whereby the Tribunal has directed the competent authority to consider the eligibility of the applicant to be placed in T3 scale pursuant to the appointment effected in the year 2009 and to extend the benefit as given in the case of others concerned; however limiting the benefit only to be given with effecting the date of filing of the O.A. According to the petitioners, by virtue of the clarifications issued by the competent authority, the subsequent orders passed in this regard, in the case of other persons and also similar order passed by the Tribunal in yet another case (copy of which has been produced as per Ext.P6), the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of T4 scale right from the date of appointment and hence the challenge.

¶34

O.P.(CAT)No.162 of 2016

¶35

¶36

The sequence of events reveals that post of

¶37

Programme Assistant (Computer) was notified as per AnnexureA1 notification mentioning the scale of pay as 9,300-34800;₹ however stating that the same was in 'T3 level'. The petitioner participated in the selection and on coming out successful, he was given appointment as borne by Annexure-A2 dated 20.1.2010, referring to the name of the post as Programme Assistant (Computer) in the T3 level, carrying a lower scale of pay of 5,200-20,200. The petitioner felt aggrieved and on₹ enquiry, he was told that initial recruitment could only be in respect of T3 post and that the scale of pay mentioned in the original notification (Annexure.A1) as 9,300-34800 was in fact₹ that of the next higher grade at 'T4'. As per Annexure-A3, the probation of the petitioner was declared. The petitioner continued his attempt to get the grievance redressed and as per the contents of Annexures-A4, A5, A6 and A7, it was got asserted that the posts sanctioned were in the T4 grade and not in T3 grade. The pre-revised scale of pay in respect of posts in T4 grade was 5,500-9000; which carried the revised scale of₹

¶38

O.P.(CAT)No.162 of 2016

¶39

¶40

₹9,300-34,800. Pursuant to a clarification sought for as to the course of action to be pursued, Annexure-A13 came to be issued; whereby it was made clear that the post of Programme Assistant (Computer) in all the Krishi Vinjan Kendras under the ICAR, irrespective of the category of Host Organisation, shall be made in Grade T4 (₹5,500-9,000 pre-revised scale) according to the XI^th Plan Sanctioned for the KVK Scheme.

¶41

In the course of further proceedings, steps were taken under the R.T.I.Act to get the position clarified; upon which one of the similarly situated persons in respect of the post of Farm Manager at level T3, was served with Annexure A14 information on 18^th of October, 2012. The information sought for and the information provided, as it appears in Serial No.1 are as given

¶42

below:-

¶43

*Sl.No.*	*Information requested*	*Information provide*
1	What is the initial grade and pay scale of Programme Assistants (Farm Manager/Computer and lab Technician) in the direct recruitment to KVKs hosted by ICAR Institutes?	The initial grade and pay scale of Training Assistant now known as Programme Assistant (lab Technician) and Computer Programmer/Operator now known as Programme Assistant (Computer) and Farm Manager is T-4 and
		₹5,500-9000 respectively.

¶44

O.P.(CAT)No.162 of 2016

¶45

¶46

The grievance was sought to be redressed by filing a representation before the competent authority, which however came to be rejected as per Annexure A15. According to the petitioner, this is not correct or sustainable and hence was subjected to challenge by filing the O.A. before the Tribunal with the following prayers:-

¶47

(a) Declare that the applicants are eligible and entitled to draw pay in scale Rs.5500-9000 and in its corresponding pay of Rs.9300-34800 Grade pay Rs.4200/- with grade number T-4 as granted to in Annexures-A4 to A6 and Annexure-A13 and to similarly situated employees in Krishi Vigyan Kendra under the respondents treating similarly situated alike, untrammeled by Annexures-A15 and A16.

¶48

(b) issue necessary directions to the respondents to grant and disburse to the applicants pay in Scale Rs.5500-9000 and in its corresponding pay scale of Rs.9300-34800/Grade Pay of Rs.4200 and grade number T-4 in pursuance of XI plan, accepted and approved by the council, and disburse the difference in arrears with all attendant benefits, including arrears of pay with reasonable interest, from their dates of appointments within a time limit

¶49

O.P.(CAT)No.162 of 2016

¶50

¶51

to be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

¶52

¶53

(d) issue necessary directions to the respondents to consider and pass orders afresh on Annexures-A10 and A12, untrammeled by Annexures-A15 and A16, in the light of A4 to A6, A9, A13, and A14 and grant and disburse all benefits including monetary arrears arising therefrom to the applicants forthwith treating similarly situated alike.

¶54

The claim was resisted on various grounds. During the

¶55

pendency of the O.A., the petitioner produced some additional documents as MA.1 and MA.2 (produced along with Ext.P5). The contents of the said documents revealed that the scale of pay and placement given at 'T3 level' as per MA.1 in respect of the person concerned, was subsequently reviewed and corrected by the competent authority as per Annexure-MA.2, placing the employee at T4 level, carrying the higher scale of pay of 9,300-₹ 34800+4,200. Reference was also made to the proceedings marked as Annexure.R2(l) produced along with reply statement

¶56

filed by the respondents which reiterated the actual position by none other than the ICAR. This virtually supports the claim of the

¶57

O.P.(CAT)No.162 of 2016

¶58

¶59

applicant. It was accordingly, that the matter was heard finally and the O.A. was disposed of as per Ext.P1 order; the operative portion of which reads as follows:-

¶60

"7. The applicants point out that in a similar recruitment of programme Assistant and Lab Technician in CMFRI, the selected candidates were offered T4 grade. Hence the applicants' claim, though recruited for a lower post, parity with similar staff of other KVK acquires some justification. The applicants do not agrue that the T3 post was upgraded/merged by VI CPC to T4, which would strengthen the applicants' case.

¶61

The respondent institute will within a period of two months verify if similarly placed staff with similar responsibility recruited about the same time in other IARI institutes like CMFRI were placed in T4 though the post was advertised as T3. If so, the applicants be also placed in T4 with effect from the date of filing of this OA. The entire exercise will be completed in three months. O.A is disposed of accordingly."

¶62

This in turn is under challenge in this Original Petition; contending that a positive direction ought to have been given to have the claim considered with effect from the date of appointment. More so, since such a course has already been

¶63

O.P.(CAT)No.162 of 2016

¶64

¶65

pursued by the Tribunal in other similar cases; a copy of which has been produced and marked as Ext.P6.

¶66

Heard Sri.Binoy Krishna P.M., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri.P.Santhosh Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the ICAR.

¶67

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent points out that the idea and understanding of the applicants to have placed them in 'T4 scale' right from the date of appointment, is thoroughly wrong and misconceived. As a matter of fact, there occurred a mistake while showing the scale of pay in Annexure-A1 notification (as 9,300-34800) which ought to₹ have been ₹5,200-20,200. The scale of pay shown in Annexure.A1 was that of 'T3 scale', which was a promotion post, which could be aspired by persons placed in T3 level, after completing a service of 'five' years. It is also pointed out that the selection for the post in question involved selection by way of written test and interview. The rigor of the test and the interview in respect of 'T4' post is upon a much higher pedestal, than the level required in respect of T3 post. On coming across the

¶68

O.P.(CAT)No.162 of 2016

¶69

¶70

mistake in A1 notification, which was initially given in the web site and also at the Farm site, it was immediately corrected by issuing a revised notification, copy of which has been produced as Annexure.R2(a). It was published in the 'Indian Express' daily dated 6.7.2009 as well. The correct factual position; that the post was in 'T3 level' carrying the scale of pay of 5,200-20,200, was₹ also mentioned therein. It is knowingly against the clear factual particulars in this regard, that the petitioner had participated in the selection; ultimately got selected and appointed as per Annexure.A2. This being the position, it was never proper for the petitioner to have taken a 'U-turn' and say something which was never intended to be provided in connection with the post or placement.

¶71

The learned Standing Counsel makes a specific reference to the sequence of events and the relevant facts and figures, as given in paragraphs 7 to 16 of the reply statement filed by the 2^nd respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The learned counsel for the petitioner however points out that the issue was taken up before

¶72

O.P.(CAT)No.162 of 2016

¶73

¶74

the 1^st respondent at different points of time even by the authorities of the units under the ICAR and it was ultimately clarified that the benefit has to be given in 'T4' level. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that even in the reply statement filed from the part of the respondents, it has been conceded in paragraph 12, that the 1^st respondent subsequently has modified the Rule, permitting recruitment of Programme Assistant/Farm Manager of the Krishi Vinjan Kendras at 'T4' level vide ICAR Office Order F.No.1-3/2010-AE-1 dated 29.6.2010, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure.R2(k). Having brought about such an amendment/modification, the question is whether any benefit was liable to be extended to the persons who were recruited after the said date, carrying the contents of Annexure.R2(k) in the notification issued in this regard.

¶75

In this context, reference is to be made to the various documents produced giving effect to the benefit of 'T4' scale to others concerned who were appointed even prior to Annexure.R2 (k). The course of action is discernible from Annexure.R2(l) and also from Annexures.MA1 and MA.2. That apart, during the

¶76

O.P.(CAT)No.162 of 2016

¶77

¶78

course of hearing, the learned counsel made available a copy of the Order bearing No.RC(R)9/99 dated 6^th of April, 2016 issued from the office of the ICAR, whereby it has been made clear that 'effective date' for grant of upgraded pay scale be that of the date of appointment, in place of 30.9.2009. We do not find it necessary to go into the scope of the said order, as the scope of consideration in the instant case is only with regard to the direction given by the Tribunal to have the claim considered to grant the benefit as sought for from the date of application. In other words, if the petitioner is found eligible to have the benefit of 'T4' as clarified by the competent authority and also as ordered to be considered by the Tribunal in Ext.P6 and elsewhere, the question is whether the same is to be paid with effect from the date of appointment or from the date of the O.A. and that is all. This Court finds it appropriate to leave the said issue, also to be considered by the competent authority while passing a final order in terms of the direction given by the Tribunal as per Ext.P1. Making the position clear as above, the O.P. stands disposed of.

¶79

O.P.(CAT)No.162 of 2016

¶80

¶81

The competent authority shall consider the merit of the case with reference to all the relevant documents forming part of the records and in accordance with law, which exercise shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of 'three months' from the date of getting a copy of the above verdict.

¶82

Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶83

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶84

skj

¶85

True copy

¶86

P.A to Judge

Sri. Jayakumar C.K v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Jayakumar C.K v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The General Secretary, Workers' Congress Vs the Manager, Madupetty Estate & Another

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs Rajeev V.K

Ncc Group Unit Run Canteen Employees Association Vs Union of India

State of Kerala Vs T.K. Surendran

Shibu Mathew Vs Ouseph Devasia & Another

Harinathan T.K Vs State of Kerala