Disposed

Coffee Board Employees' Association v. Union of India

Kerala HC1 Nov 2016WP(C)/31057/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employees of the Coffee Board challenged the non-implementation of internal study recommendations w.e.f. 29.10.2001 and sought financial upgradation under the Act Price Scheme. The Court dismissed the claim for retrospective implementation as there was no binding provision mandating immediate action on study reports and disposed of the ACP claim as no governing orders were produced.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed on the plea that no legal right exists for retrospective implementation. Direction to consider ACP claim within three months subject to submission of service particulars.

Coffee Board Employees' Association Vs Union… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/10TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 31057 of 2006 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. COFFEE BOARD EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION (RESEARCH & EXTENSION WING), REG.NO.104/1950,,

¶8

P.B.NO.38, KALPETTA POST, WAYANAD DISTRICT,, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI. G.RAGHUNATHAN.

¶9

2. P.P.PADMANABHA PANICKER, ASSISTANT EXTENSION OFFICER, COFFEE BOARD,, P.B.NO.19, KALPETTA-673 121,, WAYANAD, KERALA.

¶10

3. K.V.RAJAGOPALAN,

¶11

EXTENSION INSPECTOR, COFFEE BOARD,, P.B.NO.26, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD, KERALA.

¶12

BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.)

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE,, NEW DELHI.

¶15

2. THE CHAIRMAN, COFFEE BOARD, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,, BANGALORE.

¶16

3. THE SECRETARY, COFFEE BOARD, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,, BANGALORE.

¶17

R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.SANTHOSH KUMAR, CGC R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R2,R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R2,R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH R2,R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R2,R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI R2,R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN R2,R3 BY ADV. SRI.KURYAN THOMAS R BY SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG R BY SRI.V.BHASKARA MENON, SC,COFEE BOARD

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C).NO.31057 OF 2006

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE INTERNAL WORKING STUDY UNIT ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURE, DATED 29.10.2001.

¶23

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 03.07.2003

¶24

EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 06.01.2005.

¶25

EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.11/24/2001/PLAN B. DATED 15.02.2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.AMB/EB1/06-07/2569 DATED 04.09.2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPNDENT.

¶27

EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20.09.2006 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS, BEARING NO.ADM/EB.1/2006-07/3016 DATED 25.09.2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.10.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER ASSOCIATION.

¶30

EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1/7/2007-PLANT B DATED 04.01.2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.ADM.EB.1/2006-07/4868 DATED 02.02.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶32

EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.ADM.EB.1/2006-07/4870 DATED 02.02.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.35034/1/97/ESTT(D)(VOL.IV) DATED 10.2.2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶34

EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE O.M.NO.3/77/91-JCA DATED 11.06.2001.

¶35

RESPONDENT'(S) EXHIBITS: NIL

// TRUE COPY//

P A TO JUDGE

sm/

P.V.ASHA J.

--------------------------------------------

¶41

W.P.(C).No.31057 of 2006

¶42

--------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1^st day of November, 2016

¶43

J U D G M E N T

¶44

The grievance of the petitioners which subsists as at present is that the recommendations in Ext.P1 report submitted by the Internal Work Study Unit (IWSU), is not implemented with effect from the date of Ext.P1 letter, forwarding the report and in implementing the same only with effect from 15.02.2006. According to the petitioners, those recommendations should have been implemented with effect from 29.10.2001 itself. Their further grievance is that the ACP scheme is not implemented in their case, with reference to the posts on merger in the Coffee Board.

¶45

The petitioners approached this Court at a time when they were granted promotions as Grade-I & Grade-II officers as per Exts.P6 and P7 orders, despite the merger of Grade-II & Grade-I posts of Assistant Extension Officers, ordered as per Ext.P4. The Internal Work Study Unit (IWSU) had conducted a work study of Coffee Board, Bangalore on the basis of the directions of Additional Secretary and Financial Adviser (ASFA), Department of Commerce during the month of September 2001 and submitted Ext.P1 report. The said report was forwarded as per letter dated 29.10.2001 to the Deputy Secretary (Plantation), Department of Commerce, requesting that the same may be implemented within a maximum

¶46

W.P.(C).No.31057 of 2006

¶47

¶48

period of three months.

¶49

The report shows that a work measurement study was conducted by the IWSU during 1998, a report was submitted; but, these recommendations therein were not implemented by the Coffee Board as the Coffee Board wanted to retain certain posts, which were recommended for abolition. In those circumstances the Additional Secretary & Financial Adviser directed the IWSU to conduct a quick study of the Coffee Board; accordingly the said study was conducted from September 13 to September 20, 2001 in respect of the new areas of work and those which became redundant after the completion of the last study, the posts recommended for abolition earlier which the Coffee Board wanted to retain and other areas relating to staff structuring. A restructuring of the set up and creation of new posts were found necessary. The post of Assistant Extension Officer Grade-I, Grade-II, Extension Inspector/Assistant Extension Inspector are dealt with in paragraph (d) of the report. It has therefore requested to explore the possibility of merging the post of Grade-II Assistant Extension Officers with that of Grade-I and the post of Assistant Extension Inspector with that of Extension Inspector. There were 20 posts of Assistant Extension Officer Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.55009000, 31 posts of Assistant Extension Officer Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000. Similarly the post of Extension Inspector in the scale of pay of Rs.4500-7000 and Assistant Extension Inspector

¶50

W.P.(C).No.31057 of 2006

¶51

¶52

in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6000 were also recommended to be merged as there was not much difference in the pay scales. In the Annexure-I to the report the posts recommended for abolition are furnished, which included Assistant Extension Officer Grade-II in the scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 and Assistant Extension Inspector in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6000 at serial Nos.22 and 29 respectively. Annexure-II provided for the sanctioned strength as well as the existing strength and assessed strength of the Coffee Board, which included the post of Assistant Extension Officer Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 with sanctioning strength of 15 and assessed strength of 55. In the case of Assistant Extension Officer Grade-II the assessed strength was 0 as against the sanctioned strength of 36. Similarly the post of Extension Inspector was also given with assessed strength of 130 as against the sanctioned strength of 82.

¶53

As the report was not implemented the petitioner association submitted representations. As per Ext.P2 letter dated 03.07.2003 and Ext.P3 letter dated 6.1.2005, the Secretary of the Coffee Board informed the Member, Coffee Board that the Board had agreed to the proposal of the Internal Work Study Unit and Staff Investigation Unit and approval from the Ministry was awaited. It was informed that the posts of Assistant Extension Officer Grade-II and Grade-I were recommended for merger as Assistant Extension Officer in the scale of pay of 5500-9000 and posts of Extension

¶54

W.P.(C).No.31057 of 2006

¶55

¶56

Inspector and Assistant Extension Inspector were proposed to be merged as Extension Inspector in the scale of pay of Rs.4500-7000.

¶57

Ultimately it was by Ext.P4 letter dated 15.02.2006 that the Government of India issued orders approving the recommendations of the work study report. While conveying the approval for implementing the report approval was also granted for creation of 132 posts in the Coffee Board and abolition of 260 posts in accordance with the statement given therein. Accordingly 36 posts of Assistant Extension Officer Grade-II and 29 posts of Assistant Extension Inspectors were earmarked for abolition and 40 posts of Assistant Extension Officer Grade-I and 48 posts of Extension Inspector were earmarked for creation. Orders were issued by the Coffee Board as per Ext.P5 order dated 04.09.2006 creating the additional posts of Assistant Extension Officer Grade-I and Extension Inspector in terms of Ext.P4 order.

¶58

Petitioners submitted that they got the benefit of the orders with effect from 15.02.2006, which is the date of Ext.P4 order. Since the report was not implemented the first petitioner association submitted representations before the chairman as per Ext.P8 on 08.10.2006 requesting for implementation of the report with effect from the date of Ext P1. But the same was not being implemented and promotions continued to be made as per the preexisting rules without reference to the order Ext.P4. As there was no positive action, petitioners approached this Court praying for

¶59

W.P.(C).No.31057 of 2006

¶60

¶61

directions to the respondents to grant them promotion/financial upgradation under ACP Scheme in the post merged posts w.e.f. 29.10.2001 and seeking directions to implement Ext.P1 recommendation w.e.f. 29.10.2001 and grant all consequential benefits.

¶62

The Coffee Board filed a counter affidavit, stating that the promotions granted to the posts which are already merged were withdrawn and regarding their claim for implementation of Ext.P1 report with effect from 29.10.2001, it was stated that the Government of India had granted approval only w.e.f. 15.02.2006 and their request for implementation of recommendation w.e.f. 29.10.2001 cannot be entertained, since the same was under consideration of the Ministry for the period from 29.10.2001 to 15.02.2006. It was further stated that recommendations by a committee or group are not binding unless and until the competent authority accept the same. Regarding the claim for ACP it was stated that a uniform principle had been adopted that once the officers attained eligibility for getting promotion to the higher cadre under ACP they will be upgraded. It was further stated that the 6^th Central Pay Commission had recommended merger of 3 pay scales on account of which Assistant Extension Officers cadre would be merged with JLOs.

¶63

The petitioner filed a reply affidavit producing various documents and referring to Ext.P12, it was stated that the persons

¶64

W.P.(C).No.31057 of 2006

¶65

¶66

like petitioners were entitled to the benefit of ACP Scheme. By Ext.P12 Office Memorandum No.35034/1/97/Estt (D) dated 10.02.2000, a clarification was given by the department, on a query regarding the benefit of ACP on the rationalisation of pay scale in respect of 2 posts carrying different scales, that informing the benefits of upgradation under the Scheme are to be allowed in the existing hierarchy, mobility under ACP Scheme shall be in the hierarchy existing after merger of pay scales by ignoring the promotions. Petitioners therefore claim ACP on the basis of Ext.P12 clarification. Ext.P13 is another clarification given by the Department of Personnel and Training regarding the SIU report. In the letter dated 11.06.2001 in O.M.No.3/77/91-JCA of the Department of Personnel and Training which was stated that the SIU report is to be implemented within prescribed stipulated time, for which the Ministries/Departments have to take necessary action. The first respondent has not filed any counter affidavit.

¶67

I heard Smt.Sumathi Dandapani, the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, Shri P.Gopinath, learned counsel appearing for the Coffee Board and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent, Union of India.

¶68

The first claim of the petitioner which subsists as at present, even though it is stated that petitioners 2 and 3 have already retired from service, is for implementation of Ext.P1 report w.e.f. 29.10.2001. Ext.P1 report was forwarded as per letter dated

¶69

W.P.(C).No.31057 of 2006

¶70

¶71

29.10.2001, of Shri Ranjan Kumar, Senior Analyst addressed to Ms.Priya Kumar, Deputy Secretary (Plantation), Department of Commerce, requesting that the work study report may be implemented within a maximum period of three months. The claim of the petitioners to get the report implemented, is on the basis of that demi official letter, in which a request was made for implementation within three months. The contention of the respondents is that the Coffee Board is an independent entity and it has to take a decision regarding implementation of the report on the basis of its financial conditions. Moreover, while granting approval Central Government has not issued any direction for implementation of the recommendations in the report with effect from the date on which the report was forwarded. The learned counsel appearing for the Coffee Board submitted that even in a case where there is a direction from the Government of India for implementation of the report from a particular date, the Coffee Board would not be liable to oblige the same unless the financial implications and its financial conditions prevailing in the Coffee Board admit the same.

¶72

Ext.P4 is the order by which the Government of India conveyed its approval for implementation of the IWSU report and SIU report in Coffee Board. While conveying approval there was no direction regarding the implementation, except with respect to the need for amending that recruitment rules/regulations of the Coffee Board. Merely on the ground that there is a request for

¶73

W.P.(C).No.31057 of 2006

¶74

¶75

implementation of the report from a particular date or a period, that too in a demi official letter, the petitioners cannot claim that the report has to be implemented by the Coffee Board from the date of Ext.P1. Apart from the Ext.P1 letter of a Senior Analyst, though in the letter head of the Government of India, there is no basis for the claim of petitioners. Petitioners cannot have any right to get the report implemented on the basis of such request. No provision of law is pointed out which mandates the Coffee Board to implement a report/study reports either by the Internal Work Study or by the staff has to be implemented with effect from a particular date or within a particular period.

¶76

Learned counsel for the Coffee Board relied on judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1678 of 2015 dated 13.06.2016 in which a Division Bench of this Court considered the claim of the employees of the Cochin Port Trust for promotion under the Cochin Port Trust (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1964. After referring to the various judgments of the Apex Court, this Court held that the power of the State to take a policy decision as a result whereof an employee's chance of promotion is diminished cannot be a subject-matter of judicial review as no legal right is infringed thereby. This Court was considering the plea of the employees regarding reduction of chances of promotion and it was held that it cannot be a subject matter of judicial review since their legal rights were not infringed. Referring to this judgment, it was

¶77

W.P.(C).No.31057 of 2006

¶78

¶79

argued by the learned counsel for the Coffee Board, that the petitioners cannot have any right to claim even ACP unless and until the Coffee Board implements the same.

¶80

Learned Central Government's Standing counsel also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State Fishery Officers' Association v. State of W.B. and Another [(1997) 9 Supreme Court Cases 65], in which the Apex Court was considering the claim raised by the Government officers working in the fisheries department of West Bengal for revision of pay and it was held that when there are financial implications a policy decision of Government cannot be interfered with and plea of arbitrariness cannot be accepted where monitory benefits are claimed contrary to the policy decisions, since such matters are within the realm of the executive policy decision in which the Court cannot interfere.

¶81

In the present writ petition also the petitioners are not able to point out any provision of law or even any precedent in which or by which the Coffee Board is bound to implement the work study reports from the date on which it receives the report. As pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Coffee Board, on receipt of the report and the recommendations therein the competent authority has to consider its feasibility and to take a decision whether it has to be accepted or not. It is on the basis of the decision which the competent authority takes that the benefits can be granted. Under the above circumstances, I do not

¶82

W.P.(C).No.31057 of 2006

¶83

¶84

find any merit in the claim raised by the petitioners for implementation of Ext.P1 report with effect from 29.04.2001 or from any petition date before 15.02.2006.

¶85

As far as the claim for ACP is concerned, the respondents have stated that a uniform decision has to be taken “a uniform principle has been adopted that once the officers attained eligibility for getting promotion to the higher cadre under ACP they will be upgraded.” The claim of the petitioners is that ACP should be granted with respect to the heirarchy of posts after merger. However the petitioners have not produced the relevant govt orders governing ACP. The service particulars of the individuals are also not stated in the writ petition with reference to the claim for ACP, as available under the Central Government Departments. Counter affidavit also does not make it clear whether the ACP Scheme has been implemented in the Coffee Board as provided in the Government orders though petitioners claim that the Coffee Board officials are governed by the Central Government Scheme and as and when ACP scheme is implemented by Government of India, the Coffee Board also has to implement the same, in terms of the Circular No.SE/CA/EB.1/99/3430 dated 20.09.1999. However, it is only proper that the circular dated 20.09.1999 is also followed by the Coffee Board once it has implemented the ACP Scheme in tune with the orders issued by Government of India. The eligibility for upgradation under the ACP Scheme would be with reference to the

¶86

W.P.(C).No.31057 of 2006

¶87

¶88

conditions stipulated in the orders issued by the Government and with reference to the individual service particulars.

¶89

The petitioners have not produced the orders governing ACP and hence it will not be proper for this court to go into the said claim. Petitioners will be free to submit representations before the respondents jointly or individually, explaining their service details in which event the 2^nd respondent shall consider the same, in accordance with the ACP Scheme and in the light of in the clarification Ext.P12, and pass orders within a further period of 'three months', from the date of receipt of such representations.

¶90

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶91

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶92

Coffee Board Employees' Association v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Coffee Board Employees' Association v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sree Dharma Paripalana Yogam Vs Dr.Babu Sebastian

The Management of Ambanad Estate Vs the General Secretary

A.Reghunathan Vs Asst. Excise Commissioner, Kollam and

Raman Iravi Vs State of Kerala

Paulson Vs the District Collector and Another

Manager,Arnakkal Estate ,Vandiperiyar Vs Vice President,Idukki Jilla Estate Mazdo