IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21622 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.610/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN THE O.A.: ------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE & ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, NEW DELHI 110 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, FISHERY SURVEY OF INDIA, BOTAWALA CHAMBERS, SIR P.M.ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 001. 3. THE ZONAL DIRECTOR, MORMUGAO ZONAL BASE OF FISHERY SURVEY OF INDIA, MORMUGAO,GOA. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL SMT.SOUMINI JAMES. RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN THE O.A.: ------------- P. HARIDASAN, SKIPPER (RETD), SAGARIKA, ARATTUVAYAL ROAD, BALIYAPATTOM P.O., KANNUR -670 010. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2008, TH COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21622 OF 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in O.A.No.610/2006, which was disposed of by Ext.P4 order by the Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, are the writ petitioners. The respondent herein was the applicant in that Original Application. The applicant was holding the post of Skipper under the respondents 2 and 3. He claimed the benefit of Assured Career Progression scheme. His post was an isolated post, in the sense that there is no feeder category for promotion to that post and it is not the feeder category for promotion to any other post. But, his claim was rejected on the ground that his performance as disclosed by Annual Confidential Report was not “very good”, which was the Bench Mark gradation required for promotion and consequently for W.P.(C) No.21622/2008 2 upgradation under the scheme. The writ petitioners contended that it being an isolated post, for getting the benefit of ACP scheme, he need not have the qualification for promotion. It was also contended that the lower grading granted to him was never communicated to him and therefore the same cannot be used against him. The above contentions raised in Ext.P1 Original Application was resisted by the writ petitioners by filing Ext.P2 reply statement. The applicant filed Ext.P3 rejoinder. 2. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A. by Ext.P4 order. The Tribunal found that the post held by the applicant is an isolated post, for which there is no promotional chance. Therefore, he is entitled to get the higher scale of pay as per Annexure II to the scheme. The Tribunal held that the bench mark gradation is required, if only, there is a promotion post for the incumbent and the original application was allowed by Ext.P4. The benefits were to be granted to him with effect from August 2003, the date on W.P.(C) No.21622/2008 3 which he first represented claiming the above benefit. The petitioners attack the said finding. 3. But, no material has been produced in this writ petition to show that the post held by the applicant is a feeder category for another higher post. In the absence of any such material placed on record, we find nothing wrong with the decision of the C.A.T. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE) ps