Allowed

Union of India v. G.Swaminathan

Kerala HC18 Nov 2020OP (CAT)/128/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order regarding promotion benefits under the Flexible Complementing Scheme for a hydrologist. The Court directed the State to grant promotion benefits from earlier dates and disburse arrears.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to grant promotion as Scientist Grade-'C' w.e.f. 1.1.1991 and Scientist Grade-'D' w.e.f. 1.1.1995 and to recalculate and disburse arrears of pay/pension.

Union of India Vs G.Swaminathan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶7

OP (CAT).No.128 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 788/2017 DATED 11-10-2018 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶9

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES,RIVER DEVELOPMENT AND GANGA REJUVENATION,SHRAM SAKTHI BHAVAN,RAFI MARG,NEW DELHI-110001.

¶11

2 CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL GROUND WATER, BHUJAL BHAVAN, NHIV, FARIDABAD121 001.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:

¶14

G.SWAMINATHAN

¶15

(RETIRED SENIOR HYDROLOGIST),CENTRAL GROUND WATER BOARD,PRASEEDA, 95A,ULLOOR GARDENS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN.H. R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SMITHA R1 BY ADV. SMT.T.T.SHANIBA R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.VIPINDAS

¶17

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-11-2020, THE COURT ON 18-11-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O.P.(CAT)No.128/2019

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 18^th day of November, 2020.

¶22

Gopinath, J

¶23

The Union of India and its officers have filed this original petition challenging the order dated 11.10.2018 in OA No. 788 of 2017 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench.

¶24

The respondent (applicant before the Tribunal) had approached the Tribunal praying inter alia for a direction to the petitioners herein (respondents before the Tribunal) to extend to him the benefits of a scheme known as the ‘Flexible Complementing Scheme’ (FCS) with effect from 6.6.1987 and grant in situ promotions in accordance with the said scheme with effect from the date on which they were due and to accordingly calculate and disburse the benefits payable. The respondent had earlier approached the Tribunal seeking an extension of the FCS scheme to hydrologists in the Central Groundwater Board. It was his case that hydrologists were excluded from the benefit of the scheme on account of the fact that the post of hydrologist was wrongly categorized as a Group-B Post. Through an order dated

¶25

O.P.(CAT)No.128/2019

¶26

¶27

14.8.1997 in OA 886/97, the Tribunal allowed this claim and found that the FCS scheme had to be extended to hydrologists also. This order of the Tribunal was upheld by this Court in OP No. 22691 of 1997. The order of the Tribunal as affirmed by this Court was implemented. The respondent again approached the Tribunal by filing OA No. 788 of 1997. According to the respondent he was entitled to promotion/placement as Scientist Grade-’C’ with effect from 1.1.1991 whereas the benefit was extended to him only with effect from 1.1.1992 and to promotion placement as Scientist Grade-’D’ with effect from 1.1.1995 whereas the said benefit was never granted to him. The 1^st respondent retired from service on 31.1.2004.

¶28

The petitioners had filed a reply statement before the

¶29

Tribunal where after setting out the background facts, it was stated as

¶30

follows: -

¶31

“The applicant joined as Junior Hydrogeologist (Group 'B' Gazetted) w.e.f 21.11.1983, later on re-designated as Assistant Hydrologist (Group 'B' Gazetted) and is eligible for his in-situ promotion to the grade of Scientist 'C' under FCS w.e.f 01.01.1992 on completion of 08 years residency period in the feeder grade as per provision of the existing recruitment rules and further in-situ promotion to the grade of Scientist 'D' under

¶32

O.P.(CAT)No.128/2019

¶33

¶34

FCS w.e.f 01.01.1997 on completion of 05 years residency period.”

¶35

A reading of the aforesaid shows that even according to the petitioners, the respondent was entitled to the benefit of FCS by placement as scientist ‘C’ with effect from 1.1.1992, on completion of 8 years of residency in the feeder grade and further placement as Scientist Grade-‘D’ with effect from 1.1.1997 on the completion of a period of 5 years as Scientist Grade-‘C’. The Tribunal has noticed the submissions and has only directed the grant of benefits as contemplated by the scheme.

¶36

The learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners would contend that if the order of the Tribunal is implemented, unintended and undeserved benefits would accrue to the respondent and that placement in the higher grade under the FCS was not automatic and that it was to be granted only after evaluation of scientific work in the manner contemplated by the scheme.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that while the respondent had claimed that he was entitled to promotion/placement as Scientist Grade-‘C’ with effect from 1.1.1991 and

¶38

O.P.(CAT)No.128/2019

¶39

¶40

to promotion/placement as Scientist Grade-‘D’ with effect from 1.1.1995, he would be satisfied if the petitioners would extend the benefit from 1.1.1992 (as Scientist-C) and from 1.1.1997 (as Scientist-D) as was admitted in the reply statement which we have extracted hereinbefore.

¶41

We have considered the contentions raised. There is possibly merit in the contention raised by the learned Assistant Solicitor General that placement in the higher grade under the FCS was not automatic and that it was to be granted only after evaluation of scientific work in the manner contemplated by the scheme. In that view of the matter, there could not have been automatic up-gradation after completion of the prescribed period of residency in a particular grade. However, we are not called upon to examine that issue since it is the specific case of the petitioners before the Tribunal that the respondent was entitled to promotion/placement as Scientist Grade-‘C’ with effect from 1.1.1991 and to promotion/placement as Scientist Grade-‘D’ with effect from 1.1.1995.

¶42

In the light of the above without going into the merits, we dispose of this original petition holding that the respondent was entitled to promotion/placement as Scientist Grade-‘C’ with effect from 1.1.1991

¶43

O.P.(CAT)No.128/2019

¶44

¶45

and to promotion/placement as Scientist Grade-‘D’ with effect from 1.1.1995 and direct the petitioners herein to recalculate and disburse any arrears of pay/pension/pensionary benefits on that basis. Any amount of arrears found payable on such recalculation shall be disbursed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. No costs.

¶46

sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶47

sd/- GOPINATH P., JUDGE

¶48

acd

¶49

The dates “01.01.1991 and 01.01.1995” mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment dated 18/11/2020 in OP(CAT)No.128/2019, are substituted as “01.01.1992 and 01.01.1997” respectively as per order dated 19/11/2021 in RP.624/2021 in OP(CAT)No.128/2019.

¶50

Sd/Deputy Registrar (For Registrar Judicial)

O.P.(CAT)No.128/2019

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶55

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE RESPONDENT	O.A.NO.788 OF 2017 FILED DATED 22.09.2017.
EXHIBIT P1(A6)	TRUE COPY OF THE PASSED BY THE FIR	ORDER DATED 15.05.2017 ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1(A1)	TRUE COPY OF THE VARIOUS GROUP, GR POSTS WITH THE ME NIL	CHARGE CONTAINING THE ADE AND CATEGORY OF THOD OF PROMOTION DATED
EXHIBIT P1(A2)	TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.886 OF 1006	ORDER DATED 14.08-97 IN OF THE CAT,ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P1(A3)	TRUE COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE DATED 28.05.1986.	OFFICE MEMORANDUM OF THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EXHIBIT P1(A4)	TREU COPY OF THE IN OP NO.22691 OF	JUDGMENT DATED 23.1.2015 1997.
EXHIBIT P1(A5)	TRUE COPY OF HTHE 21.12.2016 ISSUED APPLICANT.	LAWYER NOTICE DATED ON BEHALF OF THE
EXHIBIT P1(A7)	TRUE COPY OF THE 07-2017 SUBMITTED	REPRESENTATION DATED 17- BY THE APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE 07-06-2018	REPLY STATEMENT DATED

¶56

O.P.(CAT)No.128/2019

¶57

¶58

EXHIBIT P2(A1) TRUE COPY OF THE OM DATED 28-05-1986 OF GOVT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,NEW DELHI. EXHIBIT P2(A2) TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED RULE DATED 03.02.1998 OF THE MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES,NEW DELHI. EXHIBIT P2(A3) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ORDER DATED 14.08.1997 IN OA NO.886 OF 1996 OF THIS TRIBUNAL EXHIBIT P2(A4) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.01.2015 IN OP 22-06-1997 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P2(A5) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.22/34/1996CGWB DATED 07.04.2017 OF THE MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES NEW DELHI. EXHIBIT P2(A6) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.3-(GS MENON)/2015-SCI.ESST.DATED 15.05.2017 OF THE MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES NEW DELHI. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPARATIVE TABLE SHOWING BENEFITS DUE TO THE APPLICANT UNDER THE ORDER DATED 14.08.1997 IN OA NO.886 OF 1996

¶59

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2018 IN OA NO.788 OF 2017 IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM.

¶60

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶61

EXHIBIT-R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM OF THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING DATED 09/11/1998

Union of India v. G.Swaminathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. G.Swaminathan

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

Union of India Vs Dibin Raj.S.v

Molly GE0RGE Vs Union of India

Dr.Geetha P., Vs the Kerala Agricultural University

State of Kerala Vs S.Syam

Renjith Raju Vs S. Syam

Hima.P Vs State of Kerala