AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.P. Routray, J.
The order dated 23rd December, 2009 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (in short the Tribunal‟) in OA No.277 of 2007 is under challenge.
The grievance of the Petitioners is relating to count their services from the date of their initial entry for grant of Assured Career Progress (ACP) benefits. The Petitioners were initially appointed as 26th Topographical Trainees Type B Draughtsman (TTT B‟ draughtsman) on 1st November, 1974 in terms of the Recruitment Rules prescribed in Circular Order No.435(Administrative), dated 1st August, 1950 of Survey of India under the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India. On successful completion of training they were classified as Draughtsman, Grade-V with effect from 1st January, 1976. Then they were re-designated as Draughtsman, Grade-IV with effect from 1st July, 1977 and further re-graded as Draughtsman, Grade-III with effect from 1st January, 1980 and then Draughtsman Grade-II with effect from 1st January, 1982, after clearing required trade tests.
The ACP scheme was introduced on 9th August, 1999.
The Petitioners were promoted to the post of Draughtsman, Division-I from the post of Draughtsman, Grade-II of Division-II with effect from 24th December, 2004 which is their first regular promotion.
As the Petitioners were not granted benefits of the ACP Scheme, they initially filed OA No.643 of 2002 before the Tribunal and during pendency of the same, the Opposite Parties granted the benefits of ACP Scheme, 1999 in favour of the Petitioners with effect from 1st January, 1982. Accordingly, OA No.643 of 2002 was disposed of by order dated July, 2004 with observation that nothing survives for further adjudication as full relief has been made available to the applicants. In the subsequent order dated 12th August, 2004 the Tribunal further observed that, it is always open to the applicants to seek the remedy at the departmental level for redressal of their grievances if they are aggrieved in implementation of the benefits of the ACP Scheme. The Petitioners then submitted the representation dated 3rd April, 2006 and for non-response of the Opposite Parties in disposal of their representation, they came up in OA No.277 of 2007.
The question arose before the Tribunal, as observed at para-4 of the impugned order, was that,- "what is the crucial date for reckoning regular service or residency period for the purpose of granting ACP in line with regular promotion? In other words, whether the induction training period will be taken into account for counting the regular service or residency period for promotion or ACP, as the case may be?"
The Tribunal rejected the claim of the Petitioners by holding that the induction training period will not be taken into account for counting the regular service for promotion or ACP, as the case may be, and accordingly, the Respondents have rightly reckoned the regular service of the applicants with effect from 1st January, 1982, when they are placed as Draughtsman, Grade-II.
It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that the Tribunal has erred in law by treating the service period of Petitioners from the date of their initial entry till 1st January, 1982 as residency period not counted towards regular service. According to them, on completion of training of one year two months as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules, they were classified as Draughtsman, Grade-V with effect from 1st January, 1976 and therefore counting of their services as training period up to 1st January, 1982 is erroneous. The clarification dated 29th June, 2004 regarding ACP scheme issued by the Department of P&T, Government of India speaks that, in-so-far as the requirement of eligibility service‟ is concerned, the only requirement is that, the incumbent should have completed the prescribed 12 or 24 years regular service, as the case may be, counted from the direct entry grade. Since the Petitioners are the direct recruits with effect from 1st November, 1974 their services should accordingly be counted for grant of benefit of ACP scheme.
Learned Central Government Counsel submits on the contrary that the services of the Petitioners for the period from 1st November, 1974 to 1st January, 1982 cannot be counted as regular service as the same was their training period. Their status during the said period was in-house trainees after which only they were classified in the posts of Grade-II, Division-I eligible for counting their services as regular. Amongst five cadres of services, the Petitioners belong to Draughtsman cadre in Group C‟ category when their services became eligible to be counted for regular promotion.
The initial date of appointment of the Petitioners on 1st November, 1974 and their re-grading as Draughtsman, Grade-II with effect from 1st January, 1982 are not disputed. As seen from the ACP Scheme, 1999 the requirement for grant of the benefits of two financial up-gradations is successful completion of 12 years of regular service for 1st financial up-gradation and 24 years of regular service for 2nd financial up-gradation, subject to fulfillment of other prescribed conditions. Regular service‟ for the purpose of ACP is interpreted to mean the eligible service counted for regular promotion in terms of Recruitment Rules. Clause 3.1 of the ACP Scheme dated 9th August, 1999 stipulates completion of 12 years and 24 years (subject to condition No.4 in Annexure-I) of regular service respectively for Group C‟ employees. Clause 4 of Annexure-I appended to the Scheme stipulates that, "the first financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme shall be allowed after 12 years of regular service and the second up-gradation after 12 years of regular service from the date of the first financial up-gradation subject to fulfillment of prescribed conditions. In other words, if the first up-gradation gets postponed on account of the employee not found fit due to departmental proceedings or otherwise, it would have consequential effect on the second up-gradation which would also get deferred accordingly."
The crux of the issue is what is to be counted as "Regular Service". Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules in CEO No.435 of 1950 speaks that after completion of the stipulated course of training, a trainee may be trade tested wherever necessary and to be classified for the purpose of fixing his trade and grade. Rule 4 stipulates that all personnel covered under the Rules will, on classification, be allotted trades and grades according to their qualification and aptitude. A detailed perusal of 1950 Rules does not specifically reveal what a regular service is meaning. But the ACP Scheme 1999 at clause 3.2 prescribes that regular service for the purpose of ACP Scheme shall be interpreted to mean the eligibility service counted for regular promotion in terms of the relevant Recruitment / Service Rules. The Petitioners nowhere pleaded that their services up to 1st January, 1982 have been counted for their regular promotion. At this juncture a thorough perusal of 1950 Rules reveals under Rule 12 that a man will receive grade promotion from time to time on attainment of standards required for higher grades and all candidates for promotion to higher grades will be called upon to pass the trade test. As per the pleadings of parties, the Petitioners upon passing of the required trade test were posted in Grade-II, Division-II with effect from 1st January, 1982. Recruitment Rules lay down transfer to permanent establishment after attaining the eligibility period as prescribed for each grade upon recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee. Thus, it reveals on whole that till reaching to Grade-II, the employee has to undergo series of trainings required to attain the standards for different grades. Thus, the contention of the Opposite Parties that the Petitioners were in-house trainees till 1st January, 1982 when they reached to the post in Grade-II cannot be termed unjustified. Their service period prior to 1st January, 1982 though have been counted for pensionary benefits, but is not counted for any promotional purpose. So the finding of the learned Tribunal that the Petitioners have failed to produce any material for counting their residency period up to 1st January, 1982 for promotional purpose cannot be disagreed. As such no infirmity is seen in the impugned order for interference.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.