← Library
Madras High CourtWP/32316/2012dismissed

The Union Of India v. Smt.Sarada,

2016-09-16Honourable Mr Justice P. Kalaiyarasan,Honourable Mr Justice A. Selvam7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 16.09.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN W.P.No.32316 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 The Union of India Rep. by the General Manager, Cordite Factory, Aruvankadu, The Nilgiris, Pin - 643 202.

.... Petitioner Vs.

1. Sarada

2. The Registrar The Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench, Chennai - 600 104.

.... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction in the nature of writ, calling for the records in respect of the impugned order passed by the second respondent Tribunal, dated 15.12.2010 made in O.A.No.467 of 2010 and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Addl Solicitor General assisted by Mr.K.Gunasekar, SPCCG For Respondents : Mr.V.Parthiban for M/s.Aiyar & Iyer for R1 R2- Tribunal

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by P.KALAIYARASAN, J) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records in respect of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench), dated 15.12.2010 made in O.A.No.467 of 2010 and quash the same.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : (i) The first respondent is the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The husband of the first respondent, Mr.Vittal Rao was appointed as Labourer "B" (unskilled) on 29.05.1963 at the petitioner factory. Selection Grade was given to the husband of the first respondent w.e.f 01.01.1986. He was given regular promotion as Labourer Semi skilled from 15.11.1990. As per V Pay Commission recommendation, the Government brought a Scheme called Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme for the Central Government civilian employees from 09.08.1999. (ii) According to the said scheme, two financial upgradations would be given for those who were in acute

stagnation without promotion for 24 years. One financial upgradation to the employee who does not get promotion within 12 years of continuous service and second upgradation on completion of 24 years of service. The husband of the first respondent / applicant died on 08.05.2001, while he was in service and the benefits under the Scheme was not extended to him. Therefore, the first respondent herein made representation and the same was rejected by the authority in its order, dated 24.03.2010. Therefore, the first respondent / applicant moved the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal after considering the divergent contentions of both sides allowed the claim of the first respondent / applicant. Aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the writ petitioners contends that the husband of the first respondent / applicant totally got two promotions and two financial upgradations, even though he is entitled for only one financial upgradation and if the order of the Tribunal is compelled to be implemented or given effect, it would have problem not only in the petitioner factory but it would have an all India ramification in all the 42 factories run by the Defence Ministry of Government of

India, which would be a great task and financial constrains to the Department.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent per contra contends that moving from Selection Grade to Labour semi-skilled in the same scale of pay and arguing it as a promotion is untenable and that the Tribunal has rightly decided the issue by applying the clarification issued by the DOP&T and no interference is warranted.

5. The second contention of the petitioner that implementation would have all India ramification is not sustainable in law. Admittedly, the husband of the first respondent was originally appointed as Labourer "B" on 29.05.1963 was moved to Selection Grade on 01.01.1986 and was given regular promotion as Labour semi-skilled from 15.11.1990, but with the same scale of pay as fixed for the selection grade. Further, DOP & T and also Ministry of Defence clarified that movement from unskilled to skilled post should not be treated as promotion.

6. As already pointed out, the promotional semi-skilled posts and feeder category carry the same scale of pay. Therefore, it cannot be a promotion for the purpose of ACP Scheme and the Tribunal has rightly held that the husband of the first respondent /

applicant is entitled for the first financial upgradation on completion of 12 years of regular service and second financial upgradation on completion of 24 years of service.

7. The Ordinance Factory Board, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India in Letter No.800/Genl/A/I, dated 12.09.1990, clarified that the labour selection grade posts are part of labour unskilled grade and should not be counted as labour semi-skilled. The above letter reads thus :

"In this connection, one clarification is also given regarding Labour Selection Grade. There is confusion in some factories that Labour (Selection Grade) posts are same as labour semi-skilled. This is not correct. The Labour Selection Grade posts are part of labour unskilled grade and should not be counted as Labour semi-skilled. The Labour Selection Grades are eligible for promotion to labour semi-skilled with FR.22(c) benefits. However, when a labour semi-skilled grade moves to another semi-skilled grade of a trade then he would not be eligible for FR.22(c) benefits and his movement will be taken as horizontal."

8. Thus in any angle, the contention of the petitioners regarding promotions of the husband of the first respondent is not

acceptable and as per the clarifications issued by the Govt. of India, the movement from Labour Selection Grade to Labour semiskilled cannot be treated as promotion and the first respondent is entitled to first and second financial upgradations as on 09.08.1999. as per rules.

9. The Central Administrative Tribunal has rightly allowed the claim of the first respondent and it does not warrant any interference by this Court and accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

In fine, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. The petitioner is directed to extend the benefits to the husband of the first respondent under the ACP Scheme within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (A.S., J.) (P.K., J.) 16.09.2016 Index : Yes / No tsvn To The Registrar The Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench, Chennai.

A.SELVAM, J.

AND P.KALAIYARASAN, J.

tsvn Order in W.P.No. 32316 of 2012 16-09-2016