Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 13 (ORI)

Natabar Mohanty v. Union of India

2006-01-13

L.MOHAPATRA, PRADIP MOHANTY

body2006
ORDER 13.1.2006 — 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 em¬ployees, 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 petitoner 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 ren¬dered in T-1-3 will count towards computation of five years of service for merit promotion. 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 ren¬dered 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 submit¬ted 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 coun¬ter-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 another -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, Cut¬tack & 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 Octo¬ber, 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 circu¬lar issued by the opposite party-organisation pursuant to the aforesaid decision in Annexure-9. Learned counsel for the oppo¬site 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. 4. From the discussions made in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, we find that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bibhuti Bhusan Nayak (supra) has not been taken into consideration. From the above quoted portion of the judgment it appears that the petitioners pray for consideration of their claim that they are entitled to the scale of pay of Rs. 425-700/- with effect from 1.10.1975 is required to be reconsidered. We, therefore, dispose of this writ application directing the oppo¬site parties to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Bibhuti Bhusan Nayak and others as well as the circular issued by the Organisation in Annexure-9 and take a decision in that regard within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of the Court another decision of the Central Adminis¬trative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in Original Application Nos. 244 and 245 of 1997 in which the scale of pay of Rs. 425-700/- has been allowed and therefore while considering the case of the petitioner said judgment may also be taken into considera¬tion by the authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to produce copies of the judgments before the authori¬ties for their consideration. 5. In view of the above direction, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal stands modified to the above extent. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to produce copies of the judgments before the authori¬ties for their consideration. 5. In view of the above direction, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal stands modified to the above extent. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted to proper application. Ordered accordingly.