IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6682 of 2008(S) ------------------------------------- OA.193/2005 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. THE MANAGER, GOVT. OF INDIA PRESS KHANNA NAGAR POST, KORATTY, TRISSUR, PIN : 680 309. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PRINTING DIRECTORATE OF PRINTING B WING, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-11. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY GOVT, OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION, NIRMAN BHAVAN NEW DELHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADDL.C.G.S.C. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. P.K.VENU, ASSISTANT BINDER, GOVT.OF INDIA PRESS, KHANNA NAGAR POST, KORATTY,THRISSUR, PIN- 680 309. 2. P.P.CHANDRAN, ASSISTANT BINDER, GOVT.OF INDIA PRESS, KHANNA NAGAR POST, KORATTY,THRISSUR, PIN- 680 309. 3. A.K.RAVEENDRAN, ASSISTANT BINDER, GOVT.OF INDIA PRESS, KHANNA NAGAR POST, KORATTY,THRISSUR, PIN -680 309. W.P.(C). NO.6682/2008-S: 4. K.M.SHIVASHANKARAN, ASSISTANT BINDER, GOVT.OF INDIA PRESS, KHANNA NAGAR POST, KORATTY,THRISSUR, PIN- 680 309. 5. M.DEVASSIA, ASSISTANT BINDER, GOVT.OF INDIA PRESS, KHANNA NAGAR POST, KORATTY,THRISSUR, PIN- 680 309. 6. N.RAMACHANDRAN, ASSISTANT BINDER, GOVT.OF INDIA PRESS, KHANNA NAGAR POST, KORATTY,THRISSUR, PIN - 680 309. 7. M.K.SUBRAHMANIAN, ASSISTANT BINDER, GOVT.OF INDIA PRESS, KHANNA NAGAR POST, KORATTY,THRISSUR, PIN -680 309. BY SRI. N.V. RADHAKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.6682 OF 2008-S -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The respondents in O.A.No.193/05 on the file of the C.A.T, Ernakulam Bench are the writ petitioners. The applicants therein are the respondents. 2. The applicants were Group D employees under the Central Government Press at Koratty. As per the Recruitment Rules then in force, their next promotion post is Proof Pressman in the scale of pay of Rs. 2650-4000. They are eligible to be considered for promotion to that post on completion of 4 years of regular service and subject to qualifying in the eligibility test. For promotion to the Assistant Binder in the scale of pay of Rs. 3050-4590 they should complete 9 years regular service and qualify the eligibility test. While so, ACP scheme was introduced. Those who did not get any promotion for 12 years were entitled to get the scale of pay of the next higher post in the existing hierarchy. 3. The applicants in the O.A contended that the next higher post WPC.NO.6682/08 . 2 as per the existing hierarchy is Assistant Binder as the other post, Proof Pressman, became non functional as a result of up-gradation of the printing technique using modern technology. All the applicants have completed 12 years of service also. Therefore their next higher post in the existing hierarchy should be treated as Assistant Binder. But, as per Annexure A2, as part of the first up- gradation under the ACP scheme, they were only given scale of pay of 2650 - 4000. The applicants claimed that the first up- gradation should be granted to them in the the scale of pay of Assistant Binder. Their representations in this regard were rejected by Annexure A7 series. So, the original application was filed mainly challenging Annexure A7 series seeking to quash those orders and also seeking consequential reliefs. As mentioned earlier, the contention of the applicants was that the post of Proof Pressman and equivalent posts are existing only in paper and actually those positions were not available in the press for the reasons already mentioned above. They also pointed out that actually when they were promoted as per Annexure A3 dated 22.7.02, they were promoted to the functional post, Assistant Binder, from the post of labourer. Therefore, the applicants contended that their next higher post in the existing hierarchy should be treated as Assistant WPC.NO.6682/08 . 3 Binder. The writ petitioners who were the respondents in the O.A resisted that contention. According to them, the next higher post in the existing hierarchy is that of Proof Pressman and equivalent posts and so, the scale of pay applicable to that post was rightly given under the ACP scheme. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and rendered its decision in favour of the applicants. The relevant portion of the said judgment, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P1, reads as follows: “The real question to be answered is whether the post of Proof Pressman Grade-II is in the regular hierarchical line of promotion for the post of Group-D category, to which the applicants belong. As already discussed above, there were only two posts in the entire Press in that category and the posts were also not functional and the mere fact that the post existed in paper and remained in the Recruitment Rule, as the Recruitment Rules had not been amended which exercise was done only in the year 2003 cannot be taken as constituting a normal channel of promotion when the applicants had already completed 9 years of service, it would be natural to assume that they would be considered for the posts of Assistant binder in the higher grade than to the lower grade post for which only 4 years service was required. After examining various aspects, we had come to the conclusion that these posts were not in the functional hierarchy for promotion of Grade-D employees to Group-C posts. The channel of promotion of Assistant Binder is available as per the old and new Recruitment Rules. The fact that the respondents themselves by order WPC.NO.6682/08 . 4 dated 22.7.2002 (Annexure-A/3) which was issued before proclamation of the New Recruitment Rules granted the actual functional promotion to the applicants to the post of Assistant Binders in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4950/- is itself the confirmation of the fact that the post of Assistant Binder is the next hierarchical post for the applicants. The respondents are exphosising on the words “next higher grade” in the ACP Scheme, but it has to be read along with the words occurring “next in the existing hierarchy”. The post of Proof Pressman are not in the hierarchical line of promotion having been made defunct and the Recruitment Rules as produced now also do not give a different picture. The applicants had the necessary period of service required for promotion to the post of Assistant Binders, by which time the ACP Scheme came into existence.” 4. Based on the above finding, the following reliefs were granted. “In the light of the above discussions, we confirm our earlier order and the application stands allowed with the direction to the respondents to grant the first financial up- gradation to the applicants in the scale of Rs.3050-4590/- with all consequential benefits. The applicants will be eligible for the second financial up-gradation thereafter in the next scale of pay with effect from the respective due date, in accordance with the ACP Scheme.” The writ petitioners attacked the above finding and consequential WPC.NO.6682/08 . 5 reliefs granted raising the very same contentions which were unsuccessfully raised before the CAT. 5. We heard the learned counsel, Sri.George Joseph for the writ petitioners and Sri. Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. We notice that though technically in paper the post of Proof Pressman and equivalent posts were available, they were not functional in the Central Government Press at Koratty. The next promotion post actually available was that of Assistant Binder. They were actually promoted to that post also when vacancies were available. Therefore, we are of the view that the view taken by the Tribunal that the next higher post in the existing hierarchy is Assistant Binder is a plausible view on the special facts of this case. It being a finding of fact, this Court is not justified in interfering with the same. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl WPC.NO.6682/08 . 6