IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 17679 of 1999 Between: 1 The Union of India through Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources, Shramshakti Bhavan, New Delhi. 2 The Chairman, Central Ground Water Board, Ministry Water Resources, CGO Complex, NH IV, Faridabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 N.H.Reddy, S/o N.Ramachandra Reddy, at Central Ground Water Board, Southern Region, Hyderabad. 2 K.V.S.Shastry, S/o K.Bhaskar Rao, at Central Ground Water Board, Southern Region, Hyderabad. 3 B.Jaya Kumar, S/o B.Papaiah, at Central Ground Water Board, Southern Region, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari, calling for records in O.A.No.1237 of 1996 dt:21-1-99 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and quash order dt: 21-1-99 in the said O.A. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Mr. G.Vidyasagar, Advocate The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 17679 OF 1999 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Water Resources and Central Ground Water Board have filed this writ petition questioning the order dated 21.1.1999 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (hereinafter called “the Tribunal”) in OA No. 1237 of 1996 by which the writ petitioners were directed to constitute a Review Assessment Board and consider the case of respondents for giving effect to the date of their promotion from grade of Scientist ‘C’ to the grade of Scientist ‘D’ from 1.1.1994 with all consequential benefits regarding seniority, payment of arrears and other entitlements, if any. 2. Sri A. Rajashekar Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the petitioners, submits that the 2nd respondent died and no steps could be taken as record was not available with them and 1st respondent took voluntary retirement and his present address is not known and therefore, no notice could be served on him. Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel appears for 3rd respondent. The order of the Tribunal has become final in so far as it relates to 2nd respondent. We have heard learned Assistant Solicitor General of India as well as learned counsel for 3rd respondent. 3. The grievance of the respondents who were applicants before the Tribunal was that they were working as Scientists ‘C’ for more than five years and are entitled to next higher grade of Scientists ‘D’. They sought relief in terms of the policy of Department of Science and Technology, Government of India as enunciated in O.M. No. A4201, 4/2/86-A, dated 28.5.1986 and also consequential declaration that they are entitled to grade of Scientists ‘D’ with effect from 1.1.1994, instead of 1.1.1996 with all consequential benefits. The said OA was resisted by the petitioners primarily contending that the Ministry of Water Resources framed its own rules called the Central Ground Water Board (Scientific Group ‘A’ Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1987. Reliance was also placed by the petitioners on clause 6 (3) (a) of the said Rules, which reads as under, “The total number of Officers in the grade of Scientist ‘D’ shall not exceed 30% of the total number of posts in the grades of Scientist ‘B’, Scientist ‘C’ and Scientist ‘D’ put together.” 4. The Tribunal considered various submissions of the parties including the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in OA No. 985/CH/1994, dated 11.7.1995, which was filed by similarly situated Scientists of Water Resources department for similar relief as sought for by the respondents herein. The Tribunal found that the said OA was allowed by the Chandigarh Bench and the Government of India took a decision to implement the judgment of the Chandigarh Bench passed in the above OA and the proceedings of the Government of India dated 10.5.1996 implementing the aforesaid judgment were also produced before the Tribunal. The relevant portions thereof are extracted by the Tribunal in paragraph-7 of its order. The Tribunal has also noticed that the Department of Science and Technology, as a policy of the Government of India, had issued O.M. No. A4201, 4/2/86-A, dated 28.5.1986 whereunder the restriction clause of 30% was deleted, but unfortunately the water resources department did not notice the aforesaid policy and had framed its own Rules of 1987 inclusive of the restriction clause of 30% which was contrary to the policy of Department of Science and Technology, Government of India. The Tribunal held that the respondents are entitled to the benefit of grade of Scientists ‘D’ with effect from 1.1.1994 and accordingly issued the directions which are similar to the directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in the OA referred to above. The said order is challenged in the present writ petition. 5. Though the writ petition was admitted by this Court, no interim relief was granted and as such the order of the Tribunal remains operative throughout till now. However, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners is not in a position to confirm whether the order of the Tribunal is implemented. Be that as it may, the only contention raised by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India is that the restriction of 30% in the statutory Rules could not have been overruled by the Tribunal while granting relief to the respondents herein. He, therefore, contends that without declaring the said clause as invalid and the said clause not having been questioned by the respondents, no relief can be granted to the respondents. 6. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in the light of the material on record and we find that the prayer of the respondents in the present OA was for grant of relief in terms of policy of Department of Science and Technology, Government of India vide O.M. No. A4201, 4/2/86-A, dated 28.5.1986 and for a declaration that refusal to give benefit of promotion to the respondents herein to Scientists ‘D’ with effect from 1.1.1994 was unjustified. They also sought a declaration that Rule 6 (3) and (a) of Central Ground Water Board (Group ‘A’ posts) Recruitment Rules, 1987 as arbitrary and unreasonable and being contrary to the policy of Department of Science and Technology, Government of India under O.M. No. A4201, 4/2/86-A, dated 28.5.1986. The relief sought for by the respondents was, therefore, comprehensive and keeping in view the fact that the decision of Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and that the same was implemented by the Government of India and that the said decision related to similarly situated scientists of the same water resources department, there cannot be any differential treatment to the respondents herein who are working as scientists in the same department. It has also been noticed by the Tribunal that the implementation of the said decision by the Government of India amounted to getting the benefit of judgment to the applicants before Chandigarh Bench also. We are of the view that the respondents herein ought not to be denied the same benefit who are also working in the same department. Further the fact that the policy of Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, as is evident from the O.M. No. A4201 4/2/86-A, dated 28.5.1986, being not in dispute, it has to be held that no such restriction clause of 30% limit on promotions existed in the entire Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Water Resources, which in para materia, are following the Rules of Department of Science and Technology, are equally bound by the decision of the Government of India to implement the judgment of the Chandigarh Bench, and it amounts to estoppel by conduct against the petitioners herein and they cannot be allowed to contend to the contrary. 7. As earlier noticed, the 2nd respondent is no more and the 1st respondent could not be served as he has already taken voluntary retirement and is not in employment of the petitioners. The benefit is, therefore, accruable only to 3rd respondent, as the things stand at present. Admittedly the respondents were promoted as Scientists ‘D’ in 1996, although they were eligible to be promoted in 1994. The impugned order of the Tribunal, therefore, has rectified the injustice to respondents 1 to 3. We, therefore, do not see any ground to interfere with the order impugned and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH ________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dt. 4.8.2009 KR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSKM}