AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Madan B. Lokur, J.—The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 2nd August, 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 3323/2002.
The Respondent had 11 years of service as an Assistant Director (Technical) with the Intelligence Bureau. He claimed that he was eligible for promotion in terms of the recruitment rules but the financial upgradation given to him was not appropriate.
It appears that sometime in March, 2001 there was a restructuring of the cadres in the Intelligence Bureau. Consequently, 32 posts of Assistant Directors in the pay scale of Rs. 10000-15200 were redesignated as follows:
Joint Deputy Director (Tech) [JDD(Tech)] - 24 in the pay scale of Rs. 12400-16500
Assistant Deputy Director(Tech) [ADD(Tech)] - 8 in the pay scale of Rs. 14300-18300.
According to the Respondent since he was working as an Assistant Director [AD (Tech)] for 11 years, he was entitled to the grade of ADD (Tech) in the pay scale of Rs. 14300-18300. This was denied to him by the Petitioners on the ground that in terms of the cadre restructure, the Respondent was required to work in the post of JDD (Tech) for a period of 5 years before he could get the higher scale of ADD (Tech). In this regard, reliance was placed upon the Office Memorandum dated 27th March, 2001, particularly paragraph (viii) thereof which reads as follows:
(viii) The actual placement of JDDs (Tech) in the scale of Rs. 14300-18300 (to be designated as ADD/Tech) will again be subject to fulfillment of residency requirement prescribed by the DoPT (5 years). In other words, the eligibility period for promotion from the rank of JDD/Tech (Rs. 12000-16500) to the rank of ADD/Tech is five years.
The Tribunal accepted the case of the Respondent by holding that the Petitioners had overlooked certain other relevant documents issued by them in this regard which did away with the residency requirement.
The first such document is an order dated 18/23rd June, 2004 which clearly mentions that the Ministry of Finance had approved ''redistribution'' of 32 posts of AD (Tech) as JDD (Tech) (24) and ADD (Tech) (8). This order has to be read along with another order (the date of which is not available) which deals with upgradation of the pay scale of the Technical Cadre of IB at par with the Executive Cadre of IB. In this order it was mentioned that the Ministry of Finance has clarified that the provisions of a Memorandum dated 4th February, 1992 are not attracted to the incumbents of the post of AD (Tech) on the date of the cadre restructuring and the concerned persons can be placed in the upgraded pay scale of Rs. 12000-16500/- as applicable to JDD (Tech) approved by the Ministry of Finance without insisting on the requirement of residency.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners disputes the interpretation given to these orders and submits that the requirement of residency was dispensed with only in regard to the post of JDD (Tech) and not in regard to the post of ADD (Tech). We are not in agreement with the contention urged by learned Counsel for the Petitioners inasmuch as there are some persons (such as the Respondent), who have put in more than 5 years service in the post of AD (Tech) and by virtue of their seniority and the redistribution of posts, they would be entitled to the higher pay scale automatically. Out of 32 persons holding the post of AD (Tech) only 24 of them can be adjusted against the posts of JDD (Tech). If the argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is accepted then the balance 8 persons would be left without any post, which is clearly not possible.
The idea of restructuring, therefore, is that the seniormost 8 persons should be adjusted against the posts of ADD (Tech) provided they have 5 years of service as AD (Tech) while the balance 24 persons should be adjusted against the posts of JDD (Tech). This is clear from the order dated 20th July, 2004 wherein it has specifically been mentioned that those ADs (Tech.) who were working as such on 5th February, 2001 (the date of restructuring) and were not redesignated as JDD (Tech) with effect from 5th February, 2001 would be granted the replacement pay scale of Rs. 12000-16500 with the designation as JDD (Tech) as per their position in the seniority list of ADs (Tech) without linking it to the residency requirement. There is, of course, no mention about what is to be done with the seniormost ADs (Tech) and whether they should be adjusted against the posts of ADD (Tech) in the pay scale of Rs. 14300-18300. However, it does appear from the first paragraph of the very same memorandum dated 20th July, 2004 (which has apparently been overlooked by learned Counsel for the Petitioners) that the Ministry of Finance approved the redesignation of 32 posts of AD (Tech) without linking it to the requirement of residency. Clearly the requirement of residency was not applicable to either of the two posts of JDD (Tech) and ADD (Tech). This being the position we find no error in the view taken by the Tribunal that the Respondent is entitled to the relief claimed.
There is no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed. The interim order passed on 6th April, 2005 stands vacated. The application also stands disposed of.