Delhi High Court
Indian Council Of Agricultural ... vs Shri Laxmi Narayan Meena on 31 July, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.4431/2014 and CM No.8855/2014
+ Reserved on : 5th July, 2017
Date of Decision: 31st July, 2017
INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through Mr.Gagan Mathur & Mr.Varun
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN MEENA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Chittaranjan Hati, Advocate
WITH
WP(C) No.4578/2014 & CM No.9119/2014
INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through Mr.Gagan Mathur & Mr.Varun
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
RAM RATTAN SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Chittaranjan Hati, Advocate
WP(C) No.6682/2014 & CM No.15862/2014
INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through Mr.Gagan Mathur & Mr.Varun
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
SURESH RAI ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Shanker Raju & Mr.Nilansh
Gaur, Advocates
WP(C) No.1/2015 & CM No.7/2015
INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through Mr.Gagan Mathur & Mr.Varun
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
AJAB SINGH ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Shanker Raju & Mr.Nilansh
Gaur, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J
1. These writ petitions entail identical issues with somewhat
similar facts, hence are being disposed of, vide this common
judgment.
2. All the four writ petitions are directed against orders
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,
New Delhi in four separate Original Applications (OAs)
whereby the Tribunal has while allowing the OAs filed by the
Respondents, quashed the orders of reversion challenged by
them on similar grounds and has directed the Petitioner to allow
the Respondents continue to work in the grades on which they
were working before the passing of the Revision order.
3. The common issue involved in all the writ petitions is
regarding removal of category bar from category I (T-I-3) to
Category II (T-II-3) in respect of all the Respondents, pursuant
whereto they became entitled to earn further promotion in
higher grades in the technical services to which they all belong.
The common case of the Petitioners, before the Tribunal, was
that even though the Respondents were not possessing the
requisite essential qualification for direct recruitment to
Category II (T-II-3) - which was a pre-condition for the removal
of category bar, the same was erroneously removed and once
the said mistake was detected by the Petitioner, it had rightly
0proceeded to rectify the error and had, after giving show cause
notices to each of the Respondents and considering their replies
thereto, passed the reversion orders, which action according to
the Petitioners, was in consonance with the Technical Service
Rules.
4. It may be apt to note that the technical services in the
petitioner organization are grouped in III categories consisting
of the following grades:-
Category Grade
Category I T-1
T-2
T-I-3
Category II T-II-3
T-4
T-5
Category III T-6
T-7
T-8
T-9
5. The Technical Service Rules of the Petitioner-
Organization came into force w.e.f. 1st October, 1975 and
Appendix IV thereof prescribes the minimum
Educational/Trade qualifications for different groups of the
three categories. For adjudication of the present batch of
petitions, the qualifications pertaining to category II of
Field/Farm Technicians are relevant and the same are
reproduced hereinbelow:
"Appendix IV
Minimum Educational/Trade Qualifications for Different
Groups of the Three Categories
Field/Farm Technicians
CATEGORY II
Essential Qualifications
(i) Three years Diploma/Bachelor's
Degree in relevant field
or
**National Trade Certificate of I.T.I.
National Apprenticeship Certificate
or equivalent qualifications with seven
years' experience in the relevant field.
or
**Matriculate with ten years' experience
In the relevant field.
**One year's training course in Forestry
with ten years' experience in the relevant
field.
or
**Intermediate in Science/Intermediate
In Agriculture
(ii) 3 years experience in the relevant
Field for Diploma holders."
6. In 1995, the petitioner upon realizing that the pay scales
of Grades T-I-3 and T-II-3 were overlapping, issued circular
No.1/2185 to the effect that the category bar could be removed
for those employees in Grade T-I-3, who possess the essential
qualifications prescribed for Category-II. In the service rules of
1975, this qualification, as noticed hereinabove, included three
years diploma/bachelor degree in the relevant field. The
relevant rules relating to removal of category bar from Category
I to Category II and from Category II to Category III as per the
Rules as existing in 1995 are reproduced hereinbelow and are
referred to as old TSR:-
"Old TSR (1995)
6.2 There shall be system of merit
promotion from one grade to the next higher
grade irrespective of occurrence of vacancies
in the higher grade or grant of advance
increment (s) in the same grade, on the basis
of assessment of performance. The persons
concerned will be eligible for consideration
for such promotion or for the grant of
advance increment(s) after the expiry of five
years service in the grade.
Note: Since merit promotions are restricted
within the category persons holding highest
grades viz. grade T-I-3 in Category-I, Grade
T-5 in Category-II and Grade T-9 in
category-III are not eligible for further
promotion. There is, however, no bar for
grant of advance increments to such
technical personnel who are in the highest
grade of category subject to the maximum of
three increments within the grade.
Note: Category bar between category-I and
Category-II has been removed in the
following manner.
(i) The existing employees at level T-I-3
who possess qualifications prescribed for
entry to Category-II by direct recruitment
will be placed in grade T-II-3 of Category-II
w.e.f. 1/1/1995. The employees who do not
possess such qualification will in the event
of improving their qualification and
acquiring degree/diploma/any other
qualification prescribed for entry in
Category-II by direct recruitment be placed
in grade T-II-3 from the 1st January of the
year following the year in which
degree/diploma/certificate is awarded. For
subsequent merit promotion from grade T-II-
3 to T-4, the service rendered in T-I-3 grade
will count towards computation of 5 years of
service for merit promotion.
(ii) The employees with 5 years of service
in grade T-2 and possessing qualifications
prescribed for entry to Category-II by direct
recruitment, in the event of merit promotion
through 5 years assessment in the terms of
rule 6.2 will be placed in the grade T-II-3.
(ii) The employees with 5 years of service in
grade T-2 and not possessing qualification
prescribed for entry of Cat. -II by direct
recruitment, will be placed in grade T-I-3 in
the event of merit promotion through five-
yearly assessment. Such employees in the
event of improving their qualification and
acquiring degree/diploma/any other
qualification prescribed for entry in
category-II by direct recruitment will in case
of merit promotion be placed in grade T-II-3
from 1st January of the year following the
year in which degree/diploma/certificate is
awarded.
II) Direct recruitment in grade T-II-3 will
continue to be made as in the past."
7. On 3rd February, 2000, Technical Service Rules were
amended and as per the new rules, those employees who did not
possess the qualification for direct recruitment in category II,
also became eligible for promotion to category II (T-3) after
rendering ten years service in T-2 category I. The relevant rules
relating to removal of category bar from Category I to Category
II, and from Category II to Category III as per Rules w.e.f. 3rd
February, 2000 are reproduced hereinbelow and referred to as
the New TSR:-
"New TSR
6.3 As per the revised grade structure, the
entrants of Category I at T-1-3 grade would
continue to be regulated for assessment from
T-1 to T-2 after five years of service, as at
present. However, the T-2 grade personnel,
possessing the qualifications, as prescribed
herein further under the Notification of 3
February 2000 for Category II for direct
recruitment, would be eligible for
assessment promotion to T-3 grade after five
years of service, while those not possessing
such qualifications shall become eligible for
assessment promotion to T-3 grade only
after 10 years of service in T-2 grade. The
assessment promotions from T-3 to T-4 and
T-4 to T-5 shall continue to be regulated at
five years interval, as at present."
8. At this stage, it may be appropriate to note that the term
`relevant field' was not defined in the rules and, therefore, the
Petitioner was, after examining the qualification of various
employees, removing the category bar from time to time on
case to case basis. After the removal of category bar from
category T-I-3 to T-II, the employee became entitled to earn
further promotion to Grade T-4 & T-5 which fall in category II.
9. After the promulgation of the amended Rules on 3 rd
February, 2000, all the existing employees were given option to
opt for the old rules and in case of default, they were to be
covered by the new service rules as amended on 3 rd February,
2000. It may be relevant to note that after the removal of the
category bar, all the respondents earned further promotions to
higher grades from time to time and no issue was raised during
this period regarding their not fulfilling the qualification for
direct recruitment to T-2, Category II, or regarding their
performance.
10. Though a large number of employees working under the
Petitioners/Organization all over India had been given the
benefit of removal of category bar-including the respondents
herein, but suddenly on 15th December, 2008, the petitioner
issued a clarification that the requirement for removal of
category bar has to be read as `Social Science relevant to
agriculture' and, therefore, candidates with BA/MA degrees not
having studied subjects relating to agriculture, could not be
treated as possessing the qualification for removal of category
bar in accordance with 1975 Rules. It was also clarified that in
accordance with the rules promulgated on 3rd February, 2000,
the technical employees who did not possess qualifications
prescribed for category II would be eligible for promotion to T
3 (Category I) after 10 years service in Grade T-2 (Category 1),
provided they possess the qualifications prescribed for category
I.
11. Based on the aforesaid clarification dated 15th December,
1998, the petitioner issued show cause notices dated 23rd
February, 2010 to the Respondents proposing to revert them
from T-II-3 (Category-II) to T-I-3 (Category I) w.e.f. 1st
January, 1995 and to accordingly modify all subsequent orders
placing them in higher categories from time to time. Upon
receipt of the show cause notices, all the respondents submitted
individual replies pointing out therein that they possess the
requisite qualification for promotion to the higher grades and, in
any event, they all stood promoted to higher grades i.e. T-4/T-5.
The petitioners, however, passed orders of reversion in respect
of the respondents whereby, not only their subsequent
promotions for the last many years were affected, but even
recovery of payments made to them was ordered, compelling
the Respondents to approach the Tribunal vide different OAs
for quashing of their reversion orders.
12. At this stage, it would be appropriate to note the
individual facts of the Petitioners in all the four writ petitions,
in so far as they are necessary for adjudication of the present
petitions.
WP(C) No.4431/2014 & WP (C) No.4578/2014
13. These two writ petitions arose out of a common order
dated 14th November, 2013 passed by the Tribunal in OA
Nos.1710/2012 and 1964/2012. For the sake of clarity, the
details of each of the Respondents in these petitions are
summarized below:-
Sl. Name OA Qualification Date of Present To be
No No. Removal Post reverted
. of
category
bar
1. Laxmi 1964/ BA 1-1-99 T-4 T-I-3
Narayan 2012 (Sociology)
2. Ram Rattan 1910/ BA with 1-1-95 T-4 -do-
Singh 2012 Economics
3. Smt.Vinod -do- -do- 1-1-95 T-4 -do-
Bala Anand
4. Sh.Hukum -do- - do - - do - T-4 -do-
Singh
WP (C) No.6682/2014
14. The sole respondent, Suresh Rai, in this petition is a
commerce graduate holding the qualification of B.Com (Pass)
and had filed OA No.743/2012 which had been allowed vide
order dated 23rd April, 2014. The category bar of the
Respondent had been removed w.e.f. 1-1-95 whereafter he was
promoted to T-4 w.e.f. 1-1-2000 and to T-5 w.e.f. 1-1-2005.
Vide the order of Reversion dated 28th February, 2012 passed
just one day before the superannuation on 29-2-2012, he was
reverted back to T-I-3 w.e.f. 1-1-1994.
WP(C) No.01/2015
15. The sole Respondent, Sh.Ajaib Singh, is a Graduate with
Economics and Sociology and holds a Master Degree in
Economics. Aggrieved by the order dated 10th July, 2014 vide
which he was reverted to T-5 from T-6 as a result of changing
his date of removal of category bar from 1-1-1990 to 1-1-1995,
the Respondent had preferred OA No.2264/2015 which had
been allowed vide order dated 24th July, 2014.
16. The Tribunal after noticing the individual facts of cases
of each of Respondents, allowed all the OAs by relying on its
earlier order dated 15th May, 2013 passed in OA No.763/2012
which had been allowed in similar circumstances. It would be
apt to reproduce the observations of the Tribunal in OA
No.763/2012 which reads as under:-
"10. While the applicants' counsel could not
cite any rule or judicial precedent to support
his case yet in our opinion reversion of the
applicants after such long years of service is
shocking and unjustified. It will cause
irreparable loss to the careers of the
applicants. Applicants are not at fault in this
as their educational qualifications were well
known to the respondents and there was no
misrepresentation on the part of the
applicants. Yet they were not only appointed
but also allowed to work and earn promotions
for so many years. Therefore, in the interest
of justice, we quash the reversion notices
issued to the applicants. The applicants will
be allowed to work in their respective grades.
However, we do not propose to give any
direction regarding further promotions of the
applicants."
17. The Tribunal while allowing the present OAs, quashing
the reversion orders in respect of all the Respondents and
directing that they be allowed to continue working in the grades
in which they were working, before the passing of the reversion
orders, had specifically observed that the qualifications of the
respondents were always well known to the petitioner but still
they had taken no action for almost 25 to 30 years and now after
so much delay, they were proposing to revert them to the post
which they were holding 10 to 15 years back. The Tribunal was
also of the view that it was shocking that the Petitioners
(respondents therein) had taken so much time to discover that
the Respondent (applicant therein) was always available with
them.
18. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner-
Organization has filed the present writ petitions wherein the
main contention raised by the petitioner is that the respondents
had erroneously been given the benefit of removal of category
bar, even though, they were at that time not eligible for removal
of category bar in category II as per the old technical service
rules of 1975 as they did not possess the essential qualifications
for direct recruitment of category 2 as prescribed under the
rules.
19. Arguing for the Petitioner, Mr.Gagan Mathur, learned
counsel has contended that once it was realized that the
respondents had been given the erroneous promotions, it was
fully justified in withdrawing the promotions earned by them
and mere delay in detecting the erroneous promotions, could
not be a ground to permit the respondents to continue to hold
the grades against the statutory rules. The learned counsel for
the Petitioner, has placed reliance on I.C.A.R. & Anr. Vs T.K
Suryanarayan & Ors. AIR 1997 SC 3108; U.T. Chandigarh
Vs. Gurcharan Singh passed in OA No.9873/2013 & K.
Solaman Vs. SAO, Central Marine Fisheries Research
Institute, Kochi passed in OA No.653/2009.
20. Per contra, Mr.Shankar Raju and Mr.Chittaranjan Hari,
learned counsel arguing for the respondents, have contended
that this Court has already dealt with the issue in WP (C)
No.1379/2014, wherein it had vide its judgment dated 4 th
March, 2014 rejected the Petitioner's challenge to the order
dated 15th May, 2013 of the Tribunal in OA No.763/2012 on
similar grounds. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of Shekhar Bose Vs. Union of
India 2007 (1) SCC 222 in support of their plea that if a
mistake is to be rectified, the same should be done as
expeditiously as possible.
21. Counsels for the Respondents have also drawn our
attention to letter/circular dated 19th August, 2016 issued by the
Petitioner in which twelve subjects - including Economics, have
been treated as relevant fields with effect from 24th February,
2006 and it is contended that once a clarification has been
issued in respect of the subjects which are now treated as
relevant field, the benefit thereof ought to be extended to all the
existing employees.
22. We have perused the impugned orders and given our
thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the
parties. We find that even before us, there is no explanation
given by the petitioners for the delay in passing reversion orders
when, admittedly, after removal of category bar in each of their
cases, all the respondents had earned at least two to three further
promotions. It is also an admitted fact that none of the
Respondents is guilty of any misrepresentation and their
qualifications were always known to the Petitioner. It is also an
admitted fact that as per the new Rules notified on 3rd February,
2000, even those T-2 grade personnel who do not possess the
qualifications as prescribed for direct recruitment to Category
II, would also be eligible for assessment of promotion to T-3
grade after 10 years of service in T-2 grade.
23. The Petitioner has also failed to give any justification as
to why the benefit of clarification issued on 19th August, 2016 is
being denied to the Respondents and, therefore, it is apparent
that the action of the Petitioner is wholly arbitrary and illegal.
24. We have also perused the aforesaid judgment dated 4th
March, 2014 passed by a Coordinate Bench in WP (C)
No.1379/2014, wherein this Court has already dealt with the
same issue and has, in fact, while dismissing the writ petition,
held that delay and laches would preclude any action to be
taken against the employees after so much delay. The Court
also observed that since it was an admitted fact that after the
removal of the category bar about 20 years ago, the respondents
had been promoted on the basis of assessment made by duly
constituted committees which also examined their service
record, it was highly unjust and unreasonable to revert them at
this stage. We find ourselves in respectful agreement with the
same. We are also of the considered view that the judgment of
the Apex Court relied upon by the counsel for the Petitioner is
not applicable to the facts of the present case.
25. In view of the above, we find no error in the decision of
the Tribunal in quashing the reversion orders which were
admittedly passed after 15 to 20 years.
26. The writ petitions being devoid of merit, are dismissed
with no order as to costs.
CM No.8855/2014 in WP (C) No.4431/2014, CM
No.9119/2014 in WP (C) No.4578/2014, CM No.15862/2014
in WP (C) No.6682/2014 & CM No.7/2015 in WP (C)
No.1/2015
27. Since we have dismissed the writ petitions, these
applications are also dismissed as infructuous.
(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE
(VIPIN SANGHI)
JUDGE
JULY 31st, 2017/aa
