Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Original Application No. 348 of 2009

Advocates

(By Advocate Shri N.G Phadke)
(By Advocate Shri S. Prakash, Shetty, Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel)

Judges

Dr. K.B Suresh, Member (J)
Prasanna Kumar Pradhan, Member (A)

Acts

SECTION 19 ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT 1985

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Tribunal Opinion — Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant filed an Original Application (OA) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking (1) direction to Respondent No.2 to grant promotion to the applicant w.e.f. 27.07.1998 under the University Grants Commission's (UGC) Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) by modifying an order dated 27.12.2002 (Annexure-A/6), and (2) consequential benefits.

The applicant was working as a Reader-cum-Research Officer at the Central Institute of Indian Languages (CIIL), part of the language division of the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD). The MHRD had communicated to the UGC on 27.07.1998 regarding revision of pay scales and implementation of the CAS (Annexure-A/4). Following a selection committee meeting, the Government of India issued an order dated 27.12.2002 placing five Reader-cum-Research Officers of CIIL, including the applicant, as Professor-cum-Deputy Director w.e.f. 26.11.2002 (date of the selection committee meeting) (Annexure-A/6).

The applicant contended he had completed the requisite period of service earlier (14 years as Reader-cum-Research Officer by 27.07.1998) and therefore was entitled to placement under CAS from 27.07.1998. He relied on implementation of CAS from that date in other institutions under the same administrative ministry and on internal CIIL orders where other officers were granted CAS benefits from their dates of eligibility. Respondents denied that communications to the UGC applied automatically to CIIL employees and maintained that CIIL's CAS benefit was implemented w.e.f. 26.11.2002 by government order (Annexure-R/1).

The Tribunal heard submissions from both sides, considered a rejoinder by the applicant, and reserved its decision. The Tribunal granted the OA, directing respondents to issue a revised order placing the applicant in the Professor-cum-Deputy Director scale from 27.07.1998 with consequential benefits within two months.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the UGC's Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), as implemented by the Government of India, is applicable to faculty members of CIIL from the date the scheme came into existence (27.07.1998) or only from the date of the selection committee meeting (26.11.2002) at which placements were considered.
Whether an individual employee who attains eligibility after the CAS came into existence is entitled to CAS benefits from the date of his eligibility irrespective of when the selection committee meeting was held.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

The MHRD communication dated 27.07.1998 implementing CAS (Annexure-A/4) applies to CIIL faculty and therefore the scheme should be effective for CIIL from 27.07.1998.
He had completed the requisite period of service (14 years) by 27.07.1998 and therefore was eligible for placement from that date.
Other institutions under the same administrative ministry (e.g., Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, CIEFL, CHI) implemented CAS from 27.07.1998 and granted promotions from the date of eligibility; denying the same to CIIL is discriminatory.
CIIL itself had in some instances granted CAS benefits to individuals from the date of their eligibility (e.g., Dr. Sam Mohan Lal), demonstrating that eligibility date — not selection-committee date — determined the benefit.
The applicant relied on several Supreme Court judgments (D.S. Nakara; P. Parameswaran; Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter; Union of India v. Satya Brata Chowdhary) to substantiate his claim (the OA records that these cases were relied upon by the applicant).

Respondents' Arguments

The decision to place Reader-cum-Research Officers of CIIL under the UGC's CAS was taken by the Government of India and a specific order was issued extending the benefit to CIIL with effect from 26.11.2002 (Annexure-R/1).
Communications from the Government of India to the UGC are not automatically applicable to CIIL employees; CIIL is a central government organization and its employees are not UGC employees, so specific competent-authority approval is required to implement UGC scales for CIIL.
The competent authority to implement CAS for CIIL is the Administrative Ministry (MHRD, Department of Higher Education); the Director of CIIL is not competent to independently hold selection committee meetings to grant CAS benefits.
The respondents relied on the government order implementing CAS from 26.11.2002 and on a Karnataka High Court order (WP No.24502/2013) where a different claim by the applicant was rejected; they argued that the Kendriya Hindi Sansthan order and other institutions' implementation do not automatically apply to CIIL.
Respondents were unable to produce any specific order indicating that CAS had been made applicable to CIIL from 27.07.1998 other than the order in Annexure-R/1 (which indicated implementation w.e.f. 26.11.2002).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305	Applicant relied on this judgment to substantiate his arguments; the OA records the reliance.	The Tribunal noted that the applicant relied on this judgment. The opinion does not elaborate on or expressly apply principles from this case in its reasoning.
P. Parameswaran v. Secretary to Govt. of India, 1987 Supp SCC 18	Applicant relied on this judgment to substantiate his arguments; the OA records the reliance.	The Tribunal noted that the applicant relied on this judgment. The opinion does not elaborate on or expressly apply principles from this case in its reasoning.
Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter v. Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC 299	Applicant relied on this judgment to substantiate his arguments; the OA records the reliance.	The Tribunal noted that the applicant relied on this judgment. The opinion does not elaborate on or expressly apply principles from this case in its reasoning.
Union of India v. Satya Brata Chowdhary, 2009 AIR SCW 629	Applicant relied on this judgment to substantiate his arguments; the OA records the reliance.	The Tribunal noted that the applicant relied on this judgment. The opinion does not elaborate on or expressly apply principles from this case in its reasoning.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal framed the central issue as whether the UGC's CAS would apply to CIIL faculty from the date the scheme came into existence (27.07.1998) or only from the date of the selection committee meeting (26.11.2002). It proceeded through the following analytical steps, based solely on the material and submissions recorded in the OA:

The Tribunal examined the factual matrix showing that the MHRD had communicated implementation of CAS on 27.07.1998 and that other institutions under the same administrative ministry (CIEFL, Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, CHI) had given effect to CAS from that date. The Tribunal observed that if similarly placed institutions under the same Ministry implemented the scheme from a particular date, the same benefit cannot be denied to another institution under the same Ministry.
The Tribunal reasoned that the fact a selection committee meeting was convened by the Government of India to consider promotions for CIIL employees indicated that the CAS was already in place for that institution at the time the meeting was held. It stated the converse: if a scheme were not in place for an institution, it would not be possible to hold a selection committee meeting to consider promotions under that scheme.
The respondents were unable to produce any specific order establishing that the CAS had been made applicable to CIIL only from 26.11.2002. On that basis the Tribunal rejected the submission that the scheme's applicability should be tied to the date of the selection committee meeting.
On the question of entitlement from date of eligibility, the Tribunal referred to an internal CIIL instance (Dr. Sam Mohan Lal) where CAS benefit was granted from the date of completion of the requisite service even though the selection committee met later. The Tribunal derived from this that an employee who becomes eligible after the scheme came into existence is entitled to the benefit from the date of eligibility irrespective of the date the selection committee meets.
Applying the above principles to the applicant's facts — the applicant had attained the requisite period of service by 27.07.1998 — the Tribunal concluded that the applicant should receive CAS benefits from 27.07.1998 rather than from 26.11.2002 (the date of the selection committee meeting).
The Tribunal distinguished the Karnataka High Court order relied upon by the respondents, noting that the High Court matter concerned a different issue (challenge to a revised seniority list and the availability of direct recruitment for Professors) and therefore had no bearing on the present OA seeking CAS benefits from an earlier date.

Throughout, the Tribunal grounded its analysis on the administrative records, comparisons with similarly placed institutions under the same Ministry, the presence or absence of any specific government order fixing CIIL's CAS applicability date, and on internal precedents within CIIL regarding date-of-eligibility treatment.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The Tribunal allowed the OA and held that the applicant is entitled to placement in the scale of Professor-cum-Deputy Director under the UGC's Career Advancement Scheme with effect from 27.07.1998 (the date of introduction of the scheme) rather than from 26.11.2002 (the date of the selection committee meeting).

The Tribunal directed the respondents to issue a revised order granting the applicant the scale from 27.07.1998 and to grant all consequential benefits within two months from receipt of the copy of the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal made no order as to costs.

Implications: The direct effect is the grant of back-dated placement and consequential benefits to the applicant. The opinion reasons that similarly placed institutions under the same administrative Ministry cannot be treated differently with respect to the date of implementation of the CAS. The Tribunal did not state that it was laying down a new legal precedent beyond resolving the applicant's entitlement, nor did it frame broader legal doctrines beyond its factual holdings; consequently, the practical implication recorded in this opinion is limited to the parties and the factual circumstances addressed.

Show full summary ...

Pon Subbiah (Dr.) v. Union Of India

Prasanna Kumar Pradhan, Member (A):— The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

1)to direct the Respondent No. 2 to grant promotion to the applicant w.e.f 27.07.1998 under the Career Advancement Scheme at Annexure-A/4 by modifying the order dated 27.12.2002 issued under No. 8-1/2000 D-VIV(L) at Annexure-A/6, in so far as the applicant is concerned with all the consequential benefits, and

2)grant such other reliefs as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

The facts of the case is as follows:

2. The applicant joined the Central Institute of Indian Languages (CIIL for short) which is the office of the language division of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India. He was working as Reader-cum-Research Officer in the said organization. Following the recommendations of the V CPC, the department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, vide No. F-1-22/97-VI, dated 27.7.1998 (Annexure-A/4) sent a communication to the Secretary, University Grants Commission, for review of pay scales of Teachers in Central Universities following the revision of pay scales of Central government employees on the recommendations of the V CPC. The said communication provided for Career Advancement Scheme (CAS in short) and stipulated movement of Teachers into different grades after attaining eligibility of minimum years of service. Following consideration by a selection committee, the Govt. of India, issued an order dated 27.12.2002, to place 5 Reader-cum-Research Officers of the CIIL which includes the applicant as Professor-cum-Dy. Director in the same Institute in the scale of pay of Rs. 16400-450-20900 under the University Grants Commission's Career Advancement Scheme for university teacher as extended to the Reader-Cum-Research Officers, of CIIL, Mysore, w.e.f 26.11.2002 (date of meeting of selection committee) (Annexure-A/6). However, subsequently in a few other cases, the Reader-cum-research Officers received the placement in the higher scale under the Career Advancement Scheme with effect from the date of their eligibility for the same. Since the applicant had already attained the eligibility much earlier, he was of the view that he is entitled to get the promotion to the post of Professor-cum-Deputy Director w.e.f 27.7.1998 since by that time he had already completed 14 years as Reader-cum-Research Officer in CIIL. Therefore, he approached this Tribunal seeking relief.

3. In his submission, the applicant has further submitted that in Central Hindi Institute, Agra, which is another institution under the same language division in the Ministry of Human Resource Development, the CAS was implemented w.e.f 27.7.1998 The order of the Kendriya Hindi Sangathan, Agra, dated 20.08.1994 (Annexure-A/5) also referred to the communication of the Ministry of Human Resource Development dated 27.07.1998 and other communications and gave benefit of the CAS w.e.f from that date. The applicant also cited the order passed by CIIL dated 08.07.2004 (Annexure-A/8) according benefit of CAS to Dr. Sam Mohan Lal, Reader-cum-Research Officer w.e.f 16.08.2003 when he attained eligibility even though when the selection committee meting was held on a later date, i.e, 29.06.2004 Similarly, Smt. B. Shyamala Kumari, the then Reader-cum-Research Officer of CIIL was placed as Professor-cum-Deputy Director in the scale of Rs. 16,400-22,400/- under the CAS w.e.f 26.11.2002, by an order dated 04.05.2005 by the Respondent No. 4 despite the fact that she was not conferred with the Ph.D degree (Annexure-A/9). He contended that the decision taken by the Union of India to implement the CAS pursuant to the recommendation of the V CPC and as communicated by letter dated 27.07.1998 is applicable to teachers of CIIL. In other similarly situated educational institutions, the promotions have been given from the date of eligibility irrespective of the date of meeting of the selection committee, whereas the applicant has been promoted from the date of meeting of selection committee which is discriminatory. The applicant had already completed 14 years of regular service as Reader (i.e, from 25.05.1984 to 27.07.1998) and as such he was eligible to get promotion to the grade and post of Professor-cum-Deputy Director of CIIL, Mysore w.e.f 27.07.1998 Therefore, he is entitled to the relief as prayed for in the OA.

4. The respondent No. 1 in his reply submitted that the Respondent No. 1 took a decision to place the Reader-cum-Research Officers of CIIL as Professor-cum-Deputy Director in the CIIL under the UGC's Career Advancement Scheme and issued a specific order for extending the benefit of the career advancement to all the Reader-cum-Research Officers of the Institute including the applicant with effect from 26.11.2002 (Annexure-R/1). Therefore, the decision taken by the Government of India for granting the Career Advancement Scheme with effect from 26.11.2002 is very much in order. It is true that the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Dept. of Education, Govt. of India addressed a letter to the Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi, on 27.07.1998 with regard to revision of pay scales of teachers in Central University following the revision of pay scales of Central Government employees on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission. It is to be stated that the applicant is working in a sub-ordinate office of the Government of India whereby implementation of UGC scales or scheme is not automatic and a specific approval of the competent authority has to be issued on any matter in this regard. Further, the CIIL is purely a Central Government Organization under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, Govt. of India, and therefore, all the rules and regulations governed by the orders of the Government of India issued from time to time have to be followed. The employees of CIIL are not employees of UGC. Therefore, the orders issued to the UGC for the teachers working in the Universities and Central Universities and Autonomous Bodies are not automatically applicable to the applicant who is working in the Central Government Organization. The Director, CIIL is not the competent authority to hold the Selection Committee meeting to consider the grant of Career Advancement benefit to the academic staff of the Institute including the applicant. The competent authority to consider the grant of Career Advancement is only the Administrative Ministry, i.e, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Dept. of Higher Education, New Delhi. It is true that the Selection Committee has considered Dr. Sam Mohan Lal, then RRO of CIIL for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme from the date of eligibility as the initial implementation Career Advancement Scheme had already been approved by the Ministry w.e.f 26.11.2002 The respondents finally contended that since, the decision of the competent authority was taken to implement the CAS Scheme for CIIL w.e.f 26.11.2002, the question of considering the request of the applicant for placement in the higher scale does not arise. Therefore, the OA lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. The applicant filed rejoinder in which he submitted that each and every one of the guidelines/clarifications issued by the UGC are made applicable to the employees of CIIL from day one. Merely because they did not convene the selection committee meeting prior to 26.11.2002, should not deprive the deserving teachers the benefit available to them from the due dates. All three organizations, viz., CIEFL, CHI and CIIL are under the Respondent No. 1, i.e, Union of India. The benefit of UGCs' Career Advancement Scheme has been adopted in CIEFL and CHL immediately after they became eligible for such promotion. So, there cannot be discrimination in respect of CIIL and just because the meeting was held later, the applicant should not be deprived of this legitimate benefit.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. The learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the points made by him in the OA and the rejoinder and submitted that when other institutions of the Govt. of India have implemented the Scheme from 27.07.1998, there is no ground for denying the benefit to the CIIL. Subsequently also, teachers have been granted the benefit from the date of their eligibility and not from the date of selection committee meeting. The applicant was eligible much earlier and hence, he is entitled to get the benefit from 27.07.1998, the date of implementation of the Career Advancement Scheme. He also relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court to substantiate his arguments.

1. D.S Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305;

2. P. Parameswaran v. Secretary to Govt. of India, 1987 Supp SCC 18

3. Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter v. Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC 299

4. Union of India v. Satya Brata Chowdhary, 2009 AIR SCW 629.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the communication from Govt. of India to the University Grants Commission is not automatically applicable to CIIL. The Govt. of India, in their communication at Annexure-R/1 dated 27.12.2012 decided to grant the Career Advancement Scheme to the Reader-cum-Research Officers of CIIL, Mysore w.e.f 26.11.2002, i.e, the date of the selection committee meeting. Since the Govt. of India decided to implement from that date, the question of giving benefit from an earlier date does not arise. The learned counsel also referred to an order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No. 24502/2013, in which the claim of the applicant for getting regular promotion as Professor-cum-Deputy Director was rejected. The reference made by the applicant to promotion accorded by Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra, is not applicable in this case as CIIL is a different autonomous body and in the instant case, Career Advancement Scheme was given effect only with effect from 26.11.2002 However, on a query as to whether any separate and specific order was issued by the Govt. of India extending the benefit of the pay scales to employees of CIIL on the recommendation of the V CPC including the Career Advancement Scheme and how the selection committee meeting was held in case the scheme is not already in place, the learned counsel only referred to the order of Respondent No. 1 at Annexure-R/1.

9. We have carefully considered the facts and submissions made by the parties.

10. The issue in this case relates to the date from which the Career Advancement Scheme of the UGC will be applicable to the faculty members of CIIL and whether it will be given from the date of eligibility or from the date of selection committee meeting.

11. The applicant had referred to the order of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, addressed to the University Grants Commission, regarding this and contended that since the Govt. of India issued order for implementation of the scheme which is also equally applicable to the faculty members of CIIL, the date for implementation of the scheme should be reckoned from 27.07.1998 He also submitted that other similarly placed institutions under the Govt. of India like, CIEFL and CHI had given effect to the said scheme with effect from 27.07.1998 He had also relied up on the office order issued by Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra dated 20.8.1999 granting promotion to Readers to the post of Professors under the Career Advancement Scheme in which they have referred to letter of Ministry of Human Resource Development dated 27.07.1998, addressed to the Secretary, University Grants Commission, and a letter dated 28.01.1999 of the Ministry. The respondents on the other hand had contended that implementation of the order of another organization will not automatically entitle CIIL of the benefit of the same. This argument seems to be misplaced. If other similarly placed organizations of Govt. of India and under the same Administrative Ministry, i.e, Ministry of Human Resource Development in this case, are giving benefit of the Career Advancement Scheme from a particular date, the same cannot be denied to another institution from that very date. Moreover, when the selection committee meeting was convened by Govt. of India to consider the promotion of the eligible persons from the post of Readers to Professors under the CIIL, it can be safely construed that the scheme is already in place at that time. In case the particular scheme which provides the benefit is applicable to an Institution is not already in place, it would not be possible to hold a meeting of the selection committee to consider promotions to employees of the Institution. The respondents could not produce any specific order indicating the date of applicability of the scheme to CIIL. A scheme cannot be considered as implemented from the date of meeting of the selection committee. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that to CIIL also, the career Advancement Scheme of the UGC which has been extended to Readers-cum-Research Officers of CIIL is applicable from the date from which it came into effect without having any relevance to the date of holding the meeting of the selection committee.

12. The second question pertains to the date of eligibility of an employee to get benefit under the CAS. In another case of a Reader-cum-Research Officer, viz., Dr. Sam Mohan Lal, he was given the benefit from the date of his completion of 8 years of service as Reader, though the meeting of the selection committee was held on a much later date. This implies that a person who becomes eligible after the scheme came into existence is entitled to get the benefit from the date of his eligibility irrespective of the fact as to when the selection committee meeting was held. Therefore, it is clearly evident that the applicant is entitled to get benefit of the CAS not from 26.11.2002, i.e, the date of selection committee meeting as contended by the respondents, but right from 27.07.1998 when the scheme came into existence as he had attained eligibility from that date.

13. The respondents had made reference to a High Court's order in which the case of the applicant was for promotion to the post of Professor was turned down. But, the issues in that Writ Petition are completely different. It related to the petitioner's prayer to quash the revised seniority list of Professors-cum-Deputy Directors as on 05.07.2005, since the applicant therein had sought seniority based on his promotion as Professor under the CAS. Since the Recruitment Rules provided for Direct Recruitment for Professors and no promotional avenue is available for the post of Professor, the petitioner's claim of having been promoted to the post of Professor by virtue of having CAS was not agreed to and thus the petition was rejected. But, the issue in that case was different and has no bearing to this application for granting him the benefit of CAS from an earlier date.

14. After careful consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the applicant is entitled to the placement in the scale of Professor-cum-Deputy Director under the UGC's Career Advancement Scheme from the date of introduction of the scheme, i.e, 27.07.1998 instead of 26.11.2002, the date of selection committee meeting. The OA is accordingly allowed in terms of the above observations. The respondents are directed to issue necessary revised order granting the applicant the scale from 27.07.1998 and also grant him all the consequential benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

Pon Subbiah (Dr.) v. Union Of India

Tribunal Opinion — Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

Respondents' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Pon Subbiah (Dr.) v. Union Of India

Comments