OP (CAT) Nos. 121/2016, 139/2017, 222/2016, 223/2016, 282/2016 vs Union of India and Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU** **TUESDAY ,THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1940** **OP (CAT).No. 121 of 2016** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 601/2012 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRYING AND FISHERIES, NEW DELHI-110 001.** **2 THE DIRECTOR NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES POST HARVEST TECHNOLOGY AND TRAINING, FORESHORE ROAD, KOCHI-16.** **BY ADVS. ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC** ## **RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:** **K.VIJAYABHANU AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUKUTTY, RETIRED JUNIOR DECK HAND, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES POST HARVEST, TECHNOLOGY AND TRAINING, FORESHORE ROAD, KOCHI-16, RESIDING AT VALAYIL HOUSE, VADUTHALA, KOCHI-23.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAJAN** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.10.2018, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).130/2018, OP (CAT).139/2017, OP (CAT).222/2016, OP (CAT).223/2016, OP (CAT).282/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** OP(CAT)Nos. 121/2016, 139/2017, 222/2016, 223/2016, 282/2016 **2** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU** **TUESDAY ,THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1940** **OP (CAT).No. 139 of 2017** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 102/2014 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**UNION OF INDIA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,**| ||**MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE,**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY AND DAIRYING,**| ||**KRISHI BHAVAN,**| ||**NEW DELHI - 110 002.**| |**2**|**THE DIRECTOR,**| ||**NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES POST**| ||**HARVEST TECHNOLOGY AND TRAINING,**| ||**(NIFPHTT), (OLD IFP),**| ||**KOCHI - 682016.**| |**3**|**THE DIRECTOR,**| ||**CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES,**| ||**NAUTICAL ENGINEERING AND TRAINING,**| ||**(CIFNET), FINE ARTS AVENUE,**| ||**KOCHI - 682 016.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL**| ||**SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 V.N. KALESAN S/O. NARAYANAN, NET MAKER, CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES, NAUTICAL ENGINEERING AND TRAINING (CIFNET), KOCHI - 682016,** OP(CAT)Nos. 121/2016, 139/2017, 222/2016, 223/2016, 282/2016 **3** **RESIDING AT VADACKAL HOUSE, KUNHITHAL P.O., PARAVUR - 683 513.** **2 A.T. ANTONY S/O. THOMAS, NET MAKER, CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES, NAUTICAL ENGINEERING AND TRAINING (CIFNET), KOCHI - 682016, RESIDING AT ARACKAL HOUSE, CHELLANAM P.O., KOCHI - 682008.** **3 K.J. VINCENT S/O. JOSEPH, NET MAKER, CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES, NAUTICAL ENGINEERING AND TRAINING (CIFNET), KOCHI - 682016, RESIDING AT KADAPPASSERY HOUSE, ANDI KADAVU, KANDAKADAVU P.O., PIN - 682008. BY ADV. SRI.T.NIKLAVU** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.10.2018, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).282/2016, OP (CAT).223/2016, OP (CAT).121/2016, OP (CAT).222/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** OP(CAT)Nos. 121/2016, 139/2017, 222/2016, 223/2016, 282/2016 **4** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU** **TUESDAY ,THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1940** **OP (CAT).No. 222 of 2016** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 602/2012 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 16-12-2015** ## **PETITIONER/APPLICANT IN O.A:** **N.C.SASIDHARAN AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. CHATHAN, JUNIOR DECK HAND (RETIRED), NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES POST HARVEST TECHONOLOTY AND TRAINING. FORESHORE ROAD, KOCHI-16. RESIDING AT NIKATHITHARA HOUSE, SEASHORE COLONY, NARAKKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN- 682 505.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAJAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY, DAIRYING AND FISHERIES. NEW DELHI- 110 001 2 THE DIRECTOR NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES POST HARVEST TECHNOLOGY AND TRAINING. FORESHORE ROAD, KOCHI- 16. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR, CGC SRI.JOHN VARGHESE ADDL.CGSC SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR CGC** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.10.2018, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).282/2016, OP (CAT).223/2016, OP (CAT).139/2017, OP (CAT).121/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** OP(CAT)Nos. 121/2016, 139/2017, 222/2016, 223/2016, 282/2016 **5** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU** **TUESDAY ,THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1940** **OP (CAT).No. 223 of 2016** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 603/2012 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 22-09-2015** ## **PETITIONER/APPLICANT IN O.A:** **V.U.HASSAN AGED 73 YEARS S/O. UNNI, JUNIOR DECK HAND (RETIRED), NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES POST HARVEST TECHNOLOGY AND TRAINING. FORESHORE ROAD, KOCHI- 16. RESIDING AT VATHUKKAL PARAMBIL, MALIPPURAM. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 682 511.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAJAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRYING AND FISHERIES. NEW DELHI-110001. 2 THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES POST HARVEST TECHNOLOGY AND TRAINING. FORESHORE ROAD, KOCHI- 16.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN, CGC SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN CGC** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.10.2018, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).282/2016, OP (CAT).139/2017, OP (CAT).121/2016, OP (CAT).222/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** OP(CAT)Nos. 121/2016, 139/2017, 222/2016, 223/2016, 282/2016 **6** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU** **TUESDAY ,THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1940** **OP (CAT).No. 282 of 2016** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 761/2012 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 07-10-2015** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**UNION OF INDIA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,**| ||**MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE,**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY,**| ||**DAIRYING AND FISHERIES,**| ||**NEW DELHI-110 001.**| |**2**|**THE DIRECTOR**| ||**NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES POST HARVEST-**| ||**TECHNOLOGYAND TRAINING,**| ||**FORESHORE ROAD, KOCHI.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL**| ||**SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **K.K.HARIHARAN AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. KANDANKUNJU, RETIRED TOPAZ, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES-POST HARVEST TECHNOLOGYAND TRAINING, FORESHORE ROAD, KOCHI-16, RESIDING AT KIDANGANEZHATHU HOUSE, EDAKOCHI-6. BY ADV. T.A.RAJAN** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.10.2018, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).223/2016, OP (CAT).139/2017, OP (CAT).121/2016, OP (CAT).222/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** OP(CAT)Nos. 121/2016, 139/2017, 222/2016, 223/2016, 282/2016 **7** ## **JUDGMENT** **[OP (CAT) 121/2016 ,OP (CAT).130/2018 ,OP (CAT).139/2017 ,OP (CAT).222/2016 ,OP (CAT).223/2016, OP (CAT).282/2016]** ## **C. T. Ravikumar, J.** The captioned original petitions arise from the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench on different dates, in different original applications, essentially carrying similar grievances. The applicants in the original applications concerned approached the Tribunal virtually to redress grievance regarding denial of the benefit of the ACP Scheme. True that, they belong to different categories in the National Institute of Fisheries Post Harvest Technology and Training (NIFPHT&T). They approached the Tribunal when the benefit under the ACP scheme was denied to them on the ground that they did not possess the qualification of the promotional post concerned. The official respondents who are the petitioners in OP(CAT)Nos.121/2016, 139/2017 and 282/2016 countered OP(CAT)Nos. 121/2016, 139/2017, 222/2016, 223/2016, 282/2016 **8** contentions and contended that non possession of the qualification for promotional post concerned would disentitle an employee from getting the benefit of ACP Scheme. _Per contra_ the applicants contented that the official respondents are not justified in insisting possession of qualification of promotional post concerned as a condition for granting the benefit of ACP scheme in the light of an order of Hon'ble Apex Court in **M.N. Raghunatha Kurup & Others v. Union of India and others,** [Civil Appeal No.3562/2007]. In O.A. Nos.601/2012, 102/2014 and 761/2012, the contention of the applicants were upheld by the Tribunal. Accepting such contentions made relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Raghunatha Kurup's case, it was held that the possession of qualification for promotional post concerned could not be insisted to deny the benefit of ACP scheme. At the same time, the Tribunal had declined to accept the contention of the applicants in O.A. Nos.602/2012 and 603/2012 and held that they are not having the requisite bench mark and therefore they are not entitled to the benefit of ACP Scheme. Consequently, the said original applications viz. O.A. OP(CAT)Nos. 121/2016, 139/2017, 222/2016, 223/2016, 282/2016 **9** No. 602/2012 and 603/2012 were dismissed. It is in the said circumstances, that the applicants in the said original applications and the respondents in the other Original Applications preferred the captioned Original Petitions. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel for respective respondents. 3. The arguments advanced before us would reveal that, the issue to be resolved in all the captioned original petitions is one and the same. Essentially, the question is whether the benefit of ACP Scheme could be denied owing to non possession of the qualification of promotion post concerned. The learned Assistant Solicitor General contented that going by condition No.6 of the ACP Scheme, possession of such qualification could be insisted. In other words, in respect of persons not possessing such qualifications or not fulfilling condition No.6 the benefit of ACP could be denied. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-applicants/respondent- applicants contented that, in the light of the decisions in Raghunatha OP(CAT)Nos. 121/2016, 139/2017, 222/2016, 223/2016, 282/2016 **10** Kurup's case, insisting such conditions for the purpose of denying the benefit of ACP Scheme is liable to be interfered with. To drive home the said point the learned counsel appearing for the petitionersapplicants/respondents-applicants in the above original petitions, drew our attention to the following recital in the order of the Apex Court in civil appeal No.3562/2007 as:- “.....in the ACP scheme, which is Annexure-P1 in this appeal, nowhere it is mentioned that for getting the benefit of ACP, the applicant must possess the qualification of promotional post.” 4. Evidently, the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with the question whether the benefit of ACP scheme could be denied for non possession of qualification of promotional post. It is to be noted that the same is the question to be resolved in these cases. At the same time, as noticed herein before in one set of Original Applications, the Tribunal held in the light of Raghunatha Kurup's decision that non-possession of qualification of promotional post could not be assigned as a reason for denying the benefit of ACP Scheme. OP(CAT)Nos. 121/2016, 139/2017, 222/2016, 223/2016, 282/2016 **11** Unfortunately, in O.A. Nos.602/2012 and 603/2012, the Tribunal held the question otherwise. The Tribunal held that possession of satisfaction of the bench mark is a must. It is to be noted that, it is also included in condition No.6 of the A.C.P Scheme. At the same time, it is a fact that the applicants therein also raised contentions founded on the decisions of the Apex Court in Raghunatha Kurup's case. The Assistant Solicitor General contented that a scanning the ACP scheme would reveal that, virtually, such a condition is incorporated therein and therefore persons not possessing the said qualifications are ineligible to get the benefit of ACP Scheme. We are afraid, the said contentions cannot be upheld in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3562/2007, which is produced as Annexure-A4 (Ext.P1) in O.P(CAT) No.121/2016. The relevant portion from Annexure-A4 has already been extracted. In the light of Annexure-A4 viz. the order in Civil Appeal No. 3562/2007, which is binding on Union of India, the official respondents cannot be heard to contend that non-possession of qualification of promotional post OP(CAT)Nos. 121/2016, 139/2017, 222/2016, 223/2016, 282/2016 **12** concerned could be assigned as a reason for denying the benefit of ACP Scheme. The long and short of the discussion is that, the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A. Nos.601/2012, 102/2014 and 761/2012, do not call for any interference as they were rightly rendered relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Raghunatha Kurup's case. For the same reason, the orders of the Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 602/2012 and 603/2012 invite interference as the orders thereon go in conflict with the orders in Raghunatha Kurup's Case. In the said circumstances, O.P(CAT) Nos.121/2016, 139/2017 and 282/2016 are dismissed. 5. In O.P(CAT) Nos.222/2016 and 223/2016, the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal in the respective original applications and review applications are set aside. Consequently, it is held that the petitioners in O.P(CAT) No.222/2016 and 223/2016, who were the applicants respectively in O.A Nos. 602/2012 and 603/2012 are entitled to get the benefit of ACP Scheme and they shall not be held ineligible to get the benefit of ACP Scheme on the OP(CAT)Nos. 121/2016, 139/2017, 222/2016, 223/2016, 282/2016 **13** ground that they did not possess the qualification for promotional post. Hence, the said original applications stand allowed. 6. For granting the benefits following from the judgment the official respondents/the petitioners in O.P(CAT) Nos.139/2017 and 282/2016 and 121/2016 are granted four months time from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. ## **Sd/-** **C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **JUDGE** **Sd/-** **A.M.BABU JUDGE** avs OP(CAT)Nos. 121/2016, 139/2017, 222/2016, 223/2016, 282/2016 **14** ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 121/2016** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.601/2012 DATED 25.6.2012 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 29.01.2013 IN OA NO.601/2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.601/2012 DATED 4.6.2015 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MA.NO.180/00138/2016 DATED 29.1.2016 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 22.9.2015 IN OA NOS. 605/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **NIL** ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 139/2017** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.180/00102/2014 DATED 20/01/2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED NIL/11/2014, FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.180/00102/2014 DATED 04/10/2016 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.35034/1/97-ESTT (D) DATED 09/08/1999 OF THE MINISTRY OF** OP(CAT)Nos. 121/2016, 139/2017, 222/2016, 223/2016, 282/2016 **15** **PERSONNEL, ALONG WITH THE CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF BENEFITS UNDER THE ACP SCHEME.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.A. NO.3562/2007 DATED 13/04/2011 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN M.N.RAGHUNATHA KURUP AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **NIL** ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 222/2016** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 602 OF 2012. EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN OA NO. 602 OF 2012. EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.6.2015 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN OA 601 OF 2012. EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 22.09.2015 IN OA 602 OF 2012 AND CONNECTED CASES. EXT. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION NO.180/00027/15 IN OA 602/12. EXT. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.12.15 IN RA 180/00027/15 IN OA 602/12 EXT. P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.10.2015 IN OA NO. 761 OF 2012.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **NIL** OP(CAT)Nos. 121/2016, 139/2017, 222/2016, 223/2016, 282/2016 **16** ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 223/2016** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 603 OF 2012 EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN OA NO. 603 OF 2012. EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.6.2015 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN OA 601 OF 2010.** **EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 22.09.2015 IN OA 603 OF 2012 AND CONNECTED CASES. EXT. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION NO.31/2015 IN OA 603 OF 2012. EXT. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.2.16 IN RA NO. 31/2015 IN OA 603/2012. EXT. P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.10.2015 IN OA NO. 761 OF 2012.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **NIL** ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 282/2016** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.761/2012 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS, IN OA NO.761/2012.** OP(CAT)Nos. 121/2016, 139/2017, 222/2016, 223/2016, 282/2016 **17** **EXHIBIT P3** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.761/2012 DATED 7.10.2015 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **NIL** **avs //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE**