V. Madhavikutty & Anr. vs The Indian Council Of Agriculture Research (ICAR) & Ors.

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member –

The applicants who were employed under the 1^st respondent in the Regional Station of the 3^rd respondent as Skilled Supporting Staff Grade-II till 30.6.2022 and thereafter, have retired as Assistant with effect from 31.3.2023, have approached this Tribunal challenging Annexure A5 order by which the representation of the 1^st applicant seeking an option to change the pay fixation in accordance with Annexure A1 memorandum was rejected.

The applicants claim that by Annexure A1 office memorandum dated 4.7.2023, issued after the retirement of the applicants, had invited requests from the Government employees to exercise/re-exercise option for pay fixation under FR22(1)(a)(1) in accordance with paragraph 7 of OM dated 28.11.2019. According to the applicants, the said OM issued by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance was endorsed by the Indian Council of Agriculture Research, New Delhi on 25.7.2023 by Annexure A2. The said OM endorsed by ICAR was forwarded to the concerned offices by the 2^nd respondent by Annexure A3. The applicants who had retired in the meanwhile were not aware of such OM. Since the applicants were not aware of such OM and since wide publicity as required under Annexure A1 was not given, they were disabled from responding to Annexure A3 and to exercise their option. The 1^st applicant however, by her representation dated 2.1.2024 produced as Annexure A4, sought to change her date of increment from July to January and consequently change the date of her 3^rd MACP and requested to calculate pension and other retirement benefits accordingly. The said representation was rejected by Annexure A5 on the premise that option was not received within the stipulated time even after three extensions.

Aggrieved by Annexure A5 communication the applicants have approached this Tribunal.

The respondents filed a detailed reply statement contending that ICAR is an autonomous body and CPCRI is one of the constituents under the ICAR. It was stated that the 1^st applicant was employed in the administration section of the 3^rd respondent and she was fully aware of all procedures for circulation of Government orders office procedures. Applicant No. 2 was a Farm Staff and was also aware of the various Government orders. It was also stated that the instructions contained in Annexure A1 office memorandum were earlier issued by the Ministry of Finance on 28.11.2019 and thereafter on 15.4.2021. All the Government employees were given opportunity to exercise their option to refix the increment dates during 2019 and 2021. Both the applicants were in service during the relevant period and the contention that wide publicity was not given to the OM was incorrect. Both the applicants did not exercise their option, though several employees/retired employees had exercised option/re-option. It was further stated that Annexure A1 which was endorsed by the ICAR on 25.7.2023 was uploaded in the ICAR website and endorsed by ICAR/CPCRI on 4.8.2023 and uploaded in the CPCRI website and circulated among all serving staff of Regional Station, Kayamkulam for the benefit of Government employees. After having failed to exercise their discretion within the time prescribed, they cannot be heard to contend that they are entitled to exercise the option.

Heard both sides and examined the records.

The prayer sought in the Original Application is to quash Annexure A5 as arbitrary and to direct the respondents to advance the date of increment of the applicants with effect from 1.1.2019 and to disburse them all consequential benefits along with arrears.

There is no dispute that the 1^st applicant retired on 31.3.2023 and the 2^nd applicant on 30.6.2022. It was only thereafter Annexure A1 dated 4.7.2023 was issued by the Ministry of Finance. It was endorsed by ICAR by Annexure A2 and thereafter endorsed by 2^nd respondent by Annexure A3. The respondents claim that it was published in their respective websites and was given wide publicity though it is disputed by the applicants. However, Annexures A2 and A3 clearly indicates that the communications were ordered to be distributed among all offices and sections of ICAR/CPCRI.

However, the crucial fact to be taken note is that though the applicants contend that they were not aware of Annexure A1 it was only the third opportunity granted to the employees/retired personnel who had missed the two earlier opportunities. The first option was issued by the Department’s OM dated 28.11.2019. All the Government employees were given an opportunity to exercise option within one month. Thereafter, since complaints were received stating that employees could not exercise the option within the time, by another OM dated 15.4.2021 three months’ time was granted. Both the applicants were in service when both the earlier OMs were issued. After having missed the third opportunity, a belated contention of the applicants that they were not aware of Annexure A1 cannot be accepted at this stage.

The contention of the applicants that no publicity was given cannot be accepted. It has come on record that 15 employees and 3 pensioners of the 3^rd respondent had exercised the re-option. Accordingly, at least few persons who stand on the same footing as that of the applicants, have exercised their right. In the above circumstances we find no reason to grant any further opportunity. It is also to be noted that the 2^nd applicant has not even submitted any representation and he has approached this Tribunal along with the 1^st applicant who had at least in fact filed an application seeking extension of time, though belatedly.

The Original Application fails and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.