IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 9827 of 2006(S) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESESARCH, KRISHI BHAVAN, DR.RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INSSTITUTE OF FISHERIES TECHNOLOGY, MATSYAPURI P.O., WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-682 029. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE, SC, ICAR RESPONDENT: --------------- P.T. SEBASTIAN, S/O. LATE THOMAS, TECHNICAL OFFICER (T-5), CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES TECHNOLOGY, MATSYAPURI P.O., WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-29, RESIDING AT PALIYAKUNNEL, NADALKAVU P.O., UDAYAMPEROOR-682 037. ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03 /2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 9827/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF FINAL ORDER DATED 12.1.06 IN OA NO.219/04 ON THE FILE OF CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF OA NO.219/04 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH FILED ON 3.2.2004. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN OA NO.219/04 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH DT. 23.9.2004. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN OA NO.219/04 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH DT. 4.2.2005. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF ADDL. REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN OA NO.219/04 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH DT. 7.4.2005. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.9.2002. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 12.11.2002. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28.1.2003. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.9827 OF 2006-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 19th March, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in O.A.No.219/2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench are the writ petitioners. The applicant in the said O.A is the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The respondent/applicant was promoted to T-5 grade on 1.1.1991. T-5 is a post in category II. The next promotion of the applicant is to T-6 grade in category III. A new set of rules governing promotion to various categories under the writ petitioners have been introduced as per Annexure-A2 on 3.2.2000. They are called new Technical Service Rules. For convenience, the rules in force up to that date are mentioned as old Technical Service Rules. As per the provisions of the new Rules, the existing incumbents can opt to continue to be governed by the old Rules. If no option is exercised, such incumbents will be treated to have opted to be governed by the new WPC 9827/2006 2 Rules. The respondent was a victim of the said deemed option. If he continued under the old Rules, now he could have obtained promotion to T- 6 grade in category III. As per the new Rules, he has to complete 10 years' service in T-5 grade in category II, to get promotion to T-6 grade in category III. The respondent found that those who opted to be governed by the old Rules have already got promotion, whereas he has to wait for several years to get promotion. So, he represented before the competent authority, seeking appropriate reliefs. As per the direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the said representation was considered and rejected by Annexure-A9 memorandum. Challenging Annexure-A9 and seeking consequential reliefs, the O.A was filed. 3. The writ petitioners/respondents resisted the application, contending that the applicant did not exercise his option. So, he was deemed to have opted to continue under the new Technical Service Rules. The result is that he has to wait for his turn for promotion, as per the new Rules. The CAT considered the rival submissions and disposed of the O.A., directing to consider the claim of the applicant for promotion as per the old Rules, on condition that whatever benefits, he got under the new Rules, are refunded. The Tribunal felt that on the ground of deemed option, the benefits otherwise eligible to him should not be denied. Aggrieved by the WPC 9827/2006 3 said direction, the respondents in the O.A have filed this Writ Petition. 4. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. By the order impugned, no serious prejudice is caused to the writ petitioners. Their pleadings also do not disclose any prejudice suffered by them. Though, the Tribunal interfered with the deemed option of the applicant, as the same was done to remove a serious prejudice suffered by him on his failure to opt in time, we feel that we should not interfere with the order of the CAT in exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. nm/