C. UMAKANTHA KURUP, V.R. SUBRAMANIAN, G. RAVEENDRAN, M.R. JOSEPH v. UNION OF INDIA and OTHERS

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022/22ND ASHADHA, 1944** ## **O.P(CAT).NO.236 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 7.6.2017 IN O.A.NO.821/2015 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 C. UMAKANTHA KURUP AGED 71 YEARS** - **S/O.LATE. C.RAMA KURUP, AGED 71 YEARS, ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (RETD), SOUBHAGYA, KUNDUPARAMBA, EDAKKAD P.O, KOZHIKODE.673005.** - **2 V.R SUBRAMANIAN** - **S/O.LATE. V.S RAMANATHA IYER,AGED 69 YEARS, REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II(RETD), VELUR MADOM, T.C.29/1642, CRA-119,PALKULANGARA ROAD, CHEMBAKASSERY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695008.** - **3 G. RAVEENDRAN S/O.LATE GOVINDAN VYDYAN, AGED 70 YEARS, ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER(RETD), SURABHI, T.C 9/1942, SMRA-114,SASTHAMANGALAM,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010.** - **4 M.R JOSEPH S/O.LATE. M.D RAPPAI, AGED 69 YEARS, ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER(RETD)MAPPRANY HOUSE, ST. THOMAS STREET KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR-680006.** **BY ADV.SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR BY ADV.SMT.CHANDINI G.NAIR** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR &** **O.P.(CAT).NO.236 OF 2017 :: 2 ::** ## **EMPLOYMENT,NEW DELHI.110001.** - **2 CHAIRMAN** - **CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN,14-BHIKAJICAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110066.** - **3 CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, 14-BHIKAJICAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI.110066.** - **4 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (ADM) EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695004.** **BY SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K. GOPAL, SC, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGAINSATION - EPFO BY SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC** **THIS O.P(CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **O.P.(CAT).NO.236 OF 2017 :: 3 ::** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.** The petitioners in this Original Petition were the applicants in an O.A. filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, and they are aggrieved by the order dated 7.6.2017 of the Tribunal in the said O.A. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the O.P.(CAT) are as follows: The petitioners are pensioners who retired from the Employees Provident Fund Organization [EPFO] on various dates in the years 2006 and 2007. They approached the Tribunal aggrieved by the decision of the respondents that did not extend the benefit of Senior Time Scale [STS] to them when the said benefit was extended to those in service as on 11.2.2013. It would appear that pursuant to a decision of the Principal Bench of the CAT on 13.9.2013, the respondents had considered representations from existing employees in the Organization for the extension of STS to them on completion of 5 years regular service. The employees had sought the said benefit as a stagnation benefit in view of the long years of stagnation in a particular post. The said representations were considered by the **O.P.(CAT).NO.236 OF 2017 :: 4 ::** Central Board, and the deliberations eventually led to a decision by the Minister of State (IC) Labour and Employment, who was also the Chairman of the Central Board, that the STS to Assistant Provident Fund Commissioners can be implemented with effect from 1.1.2002. The said decision of the Chairman appears to have been based on a Screening Committee Report dated 11.2.2013. It is not in dispute that immediately thereafter the benefit of STS was granted to about 135 officers, whose names are mentioned in Annexure A1 order. 2. The petitioners herein, who were aggrieved by the non-extension of similar benefits to them, approached the Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of STS to them also inasmuch as they were in service as on 1.1.2002, the cut off date specified by the Chairman of the Board for the extension of stagnation benefits in Annexure A1 order. The Tribunal, on an elaborate consideration of the matter, and after referring to the deliberations within the Board, found as follows at paragraphs 11, 12 and 13: **“11.** This is a case which has gone through various rounds of consideration and deliberations and a crucial date for disbursement of benefits arrived at. The Central board in its meeting held on 24.09.2007 decided to constitute a sub-committee of CBT to examine the report of XLRI, Jamshedpur on Organizations restructuring and cadre review in Employees' Provident Fund Organization for appropriate recommendations. The **O.P.(CAT).NO.236 OF 2017 :: 5 ::** Interim Report was placed before Special CBT Meeting held on 18.09.2008. After deliberations the Special CBT decided that all suggestions made by the members be examined by a sub Committee and its finding placed before the CBT along with the interim report. The said interim report was placed before the CBT in its 184[th] meeting held on 11.11.2008. Central Board of Trustees accepted the interim recommendations of the sub Committee on XLR1 Report on 11.11.2008. Thereafter a reasoned order was passed that Time Scale of 10000-15200 to all APFC's on completion of five years regular service, without promotion to the next grade of RPFC II as on 11.11.2008 (the date the Board took such decision), shall be allowed with immediate effect. The matter was adjudicated before the Principal Bench who disposed of by directing the respondents to decide the pending representations of the applicants by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of order. **12.** The matter was placed before the Central Board of Trustees and Central Board of Trustees in its 206[th] meeting held on 11.03.2015 and after deliberations the Board empowered Chairman to take appropriate decision. Subsequent to this, Hon'ble MOS(IC), Labour and Employment & Chairman, Central Board has passed the following order: _“As discussed in the 20[th] CBT Item No.14, Senior Time Scale to APFC's be implemented with effect from 01.01.2002 as per Screening Committee report dated 11.02.2013 and compliance reported.”_ **13.** As per the above directions only those officers have been considered for grant of STS whose name figured in the Screening Committee recommendation/proceedings held on 11.2.2013. Further, the said Screening Committee has considered those regular Assistant Provident Fund Commissioners who were in service on 11.11.2008, i.e. the date the Board took such decision initially and who had completed their 5 years regular service in APFC cadre on 11.11.2008 or before 11.11.2008. The cases of APFCs who had retired before 11.11.2008 were not considered by the Screening Committee as indicated in Anneuxre R-4 Screening Committee Report as the said officers were not in service at the time of consideration by the Screening Committee. The applicants had already retired before 11.11.2008 and hence they did not come under the ambit of the newly framed Scheme. Whenever such decision for implementation is taken there are bound to some who will remain uncovered by the benefits of the decision. The important fact to be noted is that any decision taken should be uniformly applied. Hence a cut off date fixed is required to be followed in respect of all falling within the said date. The decision to grant STS was a new rule or provision. The Apex Clout in _UOI v. D.D. Dubey in Civil Appeal No.523 of 2005 [(2010) 2 SCC 225]_ had held that any amendment to rules **O.P.(CAT).NO.236 OF 2017 :: 6 ::** cannot have retrospective effect, in respect of person already in service but would be prospective.” 3. The Tribunal therefore held that there was no illegality in the decision of the Board to reject the representations of the petitioners herein for extension of the benefit of STS to them as well. 4. Before us, it is the submission of Sri.C.S.Gopalakrishnan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Tribunal erred in not allowing the O.A. preferred by the petitioners herein inasmuch as it was well settled that service benefits could not be extended to a particular class of employees alone, to the exclusion of others similarly placed. He cites the instances where the benefits of the Assured Career Progression Scheme, whenever approved, have also been extended to retired employees of an Organization, and he prayed that a similar view be taken in respect of the STS benefit as well. 5. On a consideration of the said submission as also the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, we find ourselves unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. As already noticed by the Tribunal in the order impugned in this O.P.(CAT), the deliberations that took place in connection with extension of the STS to employees in the EPFO were **O.P.(CAT).NO.236 OF 2017 :: 7 ::** based on representations received from existing employees of the Organization, and with a view to ameliorate the difficulties faced by those employees who were admittedly stagnating in a post without any Career Progression for a long period of time. The deliberations eventually resulted, initially in an order extending the benefit of STS in 2013 to those who had completed 5 years of service in the same post, from 2008 onwards. Thereafter, taking note of representations from persons who were in service as on the date of the decision of the Committee recommending the extension of the STS, the implementation of the STS was directed from 1.1.2002 so as to take care of those who had stagnated between 2002 and 2008. In both the cases above, the crucial fact to be noticed is that what was taken into account by the Board, pursuant to the representations received from the employees, was the factum of stagnation of the employees who were on the rolls in 2013, when a decision was taken to extend the said benefit to them. It is not in dispute that as on the date when the said decision was taken, the petitioners herein were not in service and therefore they could not be said to be persons who were affected by a stagnation on that date. Thus, we do not see how the petitioners herein can be said to be similarly placed as those who were eventually granted the benefit of Annexure A1 order and extended the STS as part of a stagnation benefit. The analogy drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioners **O.P.(CAT).NO.236 OF 2017 :: 8 ::** with the Assured Career Progression Scheme does not really apply to the facts in the instant case. Thus, for the reasons stated in the impugned order of the Tribunal as supplemented by the reasons in this judgment, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The O.P. (CAT) fails, and is accordingly dismissed. **Sd/A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE** **Sd/MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE** **prp/14/7/22** **O.P.(CAT).NO.236 OF 2017 :: 9 ::** ## **APPENDIX OF O.P.(CAT).NO.236/2017** ## **PETITIONERS ANNEXURES:** |**ANNEXURE**|**A1**|**IN**|**TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.HRM-1/D-**|**TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.HRM-1/D-**| |---|---|---|---|---| |**EXHIBIT P1**|||**4(1)2009/PART 1 DT: 8.4.2015**|| |**ANNEXURE**|**A2**|**IN**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO **|**P1/A-**| |**EXHIBIT P1**|||**10(11)98/DPC/APFC/62452 DT:27.9.1999**|| |**ANNEXURE**<br>**EXHIBIT P1**|**A3**|**IN**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT:27.4.2015**|| |**ANNEXURE**<br>**EXHIBIT P1**|**A4**|**IN**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT:18.4.2015**|| |**ANNEXURE**|**A5**|**IN**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION **|**DATED**| |**EXHIBIT P1**|||**23.4.2015**|| |**ANNEXURE**|**A6**|**IN**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION **|**DATED**| |**EXHIBIT P1**|||**23.4.2015(4TH RESPONDENT)**|| |**ANNEXURE**|**A7**|**IN**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO HRM-II/R-**|| |**EXHIBIT P1**|||**1(14)2015 DATED 23.9.2015**|| |**ANNEXURE R1**|||**TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO HRD/1(1)**|| ||||**2008/XLRI/PETITIONER-III/71171**|**DATED**| ||||**30.12.2008**|| |**ANNEXURE R2**|||**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GRANTING STD 145**|| ||||**OFFICERS VIDE OFFICE ORDER NO HRM/1/D-**|| ||||**4(1)2009/19043-19243 DATED 30.12.2008**|| |**ANNEXURE R3**|||**TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENING COMMITTEE**|**REPORT**| ||||**DATED 11.2.2013**|| |**ANNEXURE A4**|||**TRUE COPY OF THE SPEAKING ORDER **|**DATED**| ||||**4.11.2013**|| **O.P.(CAT).NO.236 OF 2017 :: 10 ::** **ANNEXURE R5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 20.3.2015 OF HON'BLE CHAIRMAN,CBT/MOS) (IC)L&F,GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ANNEXURE R4 TRUE COPY OF THE SPEAKING ORDER DT. 4.11.2013 EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION OA NO.821/2015. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.7.6.2017 IN O.A NO.821/2015.** ## **RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE**