Hukam Chand Gupta vs Director General, I.C.A.R. & Ors

4. The appellant was initially appointed as a Laboratory Assistant in Group D on 29th December, 1961 in the National Dairy Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDRI’). On 13th January, 1966, he was promoted as a Lower Division Clerk (Junior Clerk) after qualifying limited departmental competitive examination. He was further promoted on 10th May, 1973 as a Senior Clerk, again after qualifying limited departmental competitive examination. At that stage, his pay scale was Rs.1200-2040/-. Subsequently, on 15th June, 1988, he was promoted to the post of Superintendent in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/- after passing the departmental examination. On 17th March, 1994, he was promoted as Assistant Administrative Officer on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. The respondent revised the pay scale of Assistants on 17th June, 1995 from Rs.1400- 2600 to Rs.1640-2900/- w.e.f. 1st January, 1986. However, the pay scale of Superintendent was not revised.

5. At that stage, the appellant submitted a representation on 24th October, 1995 requesting that his pay scale may be revised on the ground that in Headquarters of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), the post of Superintendent is a promotional post from that of Assistant which carries the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/- . The representation not having been decided, the appellant filed OA No.567-HR-96 before the Chandigarh Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). By order dated 20th May, 1997 the Tribunal disposed of OA with the following observations :-

7. It appears that on 12th December, 2000, the Screening Committee of respondent institute recommended the case of Shri J.I.P. Madan for financial upgradation in the scale of Rs.8000-13500/-. The aforesaid decision was taken on the basis of the instructions of the ICAR by which the post of Superintendent was merged with the post of Assistant as the post of Superintendent was treated as ‘dying cadre’. In the meantime, the appellant reached the age of superannuation on 31st July, 2001 and duly retired from service. On 17th April, 2002, Shri J.I.P. Madan was granted second financial upgradation w.e.f. 8th February, 2001 in the pay scale of Rs.8000- 13500. At this stage, the appellant again moved the Tribunal through OA No.299/HR/2003. The appellant claimed that Shri J.I.P. Madan being junior to him cannot be put in a higher pay scale. The OA was dismissed on 2nd December, 2003.

8. By a detailed order, the Tribunal rejected both the claims. It was observed that the post at Headquarters cannot be compared with the post at Institutional level as both are governed by different sets of Service Rules. The second prayer with regard to the higher pay scale given to Shri J.I.P. Madan was rejected on the ground that he had been given the benefit of second upgradation in pay since he had earned only one promotion throughout his professional career.

15. In our opinion, the explanation given by Mrs. Sunita Rao does not leave any room for doubt that the claim made by the appellant is wholly misconceived. There is no comparison between the appellant and Shri J.I.P. Madan. The appellant had duly earned promotion in his cadre from the lowest rank to the higher rank. Having joined in Group D, he retired on the post of AAO. On the other hand, Shri J.I.P. Madan had been working in the same pay scale till his promotion on the post of AAO. Therefore, he was held entitled to the second upgradation after 24 years of service. He had joined as an Assistant by Direct Recruitment and promoted on 24th August 1990 as a Superintendent. After the merger of the post of Assistant with the Superintendent, the earlier promotion of Shri Madan was nullified, as Assistant was no longer a feeder post for the promotion on the post of Superintendent. Thus, a financial upgradation, in view of ACP Scheme, was granted to him since he had no opportunity for the second promotion.

21. In our opinion, the aforesaid observations would be a complete answer to all the submissions made by the appellant.

22. For the aforesaid reasons, we see no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.

September 25, 2012.