High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2015-12-09Dismissed

S. Ravikumar v. Food Corporation of India

Case / Petition Number:OP.No. 21474 of 2002 (F)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Judgment Date: 2015-12-09
Court Decision / Holding: For all the above reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same would stand dismissed. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

S. Ravikumar

Respondents

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, represented by Managing Director, Head Quarters, New Delhi
THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, Regional Office, Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Miraj Ismail
• Sri G.P. Shinod

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri N.M. James, Senior Counsel, FCI
• Sri N.D. Premachandran

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, S. Ravikumar, an Assistant Grade III in the Food Corporation of India, challenged Ext.P1, an incentive scheme for acquiring higher qualifications while in service. Ext.P1 listed eligible courses (including LLB) and created an incentive to attract professional advancement from the lower cadre. Ext.P2 clarified that the benefit would be available only to those who attain higher qualifications during service; those who already possessed higher qualifications at the time of appointment would not be eligible. The petitioner argued that his possession of an LLB beyond the basic graduation satisfied the scheme’s objective, and depriving him would be discriminatory against similarly qualified employees, undermining the scheme’s purpose of motivating qualification upgrades. The petitioner also contended that the essential qualification for the post was graduation and that an in-service qualification upgrade should be rewarded. The respondents contended that the scheme’s purpose is to motivate ongoing professional development and recruitment from within and that awarding the incentive to former entrants would defeat the scheme’s objective by rewarding pre-existing qualifications. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Food Corporation of India v. Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh (2012) and held that extending incentives to in-service employees while excluding those who already possessed higher qualifications before joining would not amount to discrimination, since it furthers the policy’s aim. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, with costs.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext. P1 creates an incentive scheme to motivate employees to acquire higher professional qualifications while in service, including the addition of an LLB. He argues that this satisfies the eligibility criteria of the scheme and that Ext. P2’s exclusion of employees who already had higher qualifications at the time of appointment is discriminatory against those who have pursued further qualifications during service. He emphasizes that the scheme’s objective is to recruit to higher posts from the lower cadre by rewarding in-service upskilling and that denying him the incentive undermines the scheme’s purpose. The applicant further contends that the essential qualification for the post was graduation, and his concurrent LLB should not bar him from eligibility given the in-service qualification upgrade envisaged by Ext. P1. The petitioner cites the principle that classifications between equals with no nexus to the objective should be scrutinized, arguing equality and fairness in government incentives.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue Ext. P1 is a targeted incentive to encourage in-service employees to acquire higher qualifications and to effect faster progression, with Ext. P2 clarifying that those who already had higher qualifications at the time of appointment are not eligible. They rely on a Supreme Court ruling in 2012 (Food Corporation of India v. Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh and another) which held that denying incentives to those already with higher qualifications before joining does not render the scheme discriminatory, as it furthers the scheme’s purpose. They point out that the petitioner joined in 1978 and that Circular No. 27/2000, though cited, postdates his entry; the 2000 circular is not retroactive and cannot entitle him to the benefits. They contend that allowing the petitioner to benefit would defeat the policy’s objective and that Ext. P1 was designed for new entrants to upgrade in-service qualifications.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Food Corporation of India and others Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh and another	2012 (2) SCC 307	Positive	The cited Supreme Court decision upheld a similar incentive scheme and held that granting an incentive to in-service employees while denying to those who already had the higher qualification before joining is not discriminatory, supporting the policy objective.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against S. Ravikumar v. Food Corporation of India and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937** ## **OP.No. 21474 of 2002 (F)** **-------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------------------** **S.RAVIKUMAR, ASSISTANT GRADE III(D) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DISTRICT OFFICE KOLLAM - 691 001.** **BY ADVS.SRI.MIRAJ ISMAIL SRI.G.P.SHINOD** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **----------------------------** ## **1. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REP.BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD QUARTERS, NEW DELHI-110001** ## **2. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, FOOD** **CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, KESAVADASAPURAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **R,R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.N.M.JAMES, SC, FCI R BY SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN** **THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **OP.No. 21474 of 2002 (F)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:** - **EXT.P1 COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 40 OF 1985 DTD. 29/7/85 ISSUED BY THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA.** - **EXT.P2 COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED AS CIRCULAR NO. 75/1987 DTD. 14.12.87** - **EXT.P3 COPY OF THE SAID REPRESENTATION DTD. 20.2.86 EXT.P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DTD. 7.3.88 EXT.P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 27.10.88 EXT.P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 13.10.92 IN SWP.1146/88 EXT.P7 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 18.5.94 SENT BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, FOOD CORPORATIO OF INDIA.** - **EXT.P8 COPY OF THAT REPRESENTATION DTD. 16.6.2000 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P9 MEMO DATED 16.09.2000 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER OF THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA.** - **EXT.P10 COPY OF LETTER DTD. 15.7.02 SEND BY THE ACTING REGIONAL CHAIRMAN TO THE HON. PRESIDENT, FOOD CORPORPORATION OF INDIA, EMPLOYEES UNION, CHENNAI.** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:** - **EXT.R2(A) COPY OF THE ORDER IN SWP. 1470/94 OF HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR DTD. 23.5.02** - **EXT.R2(B) COPY OF THE ORDER OF TH E HON'BLE SUPRME COURT IN SLP NO. 18303/02 DTD. 11.11.02** - **EXT.R2(C) COPY OF THE CIRCULAR OF HEAD QUARTERS OF FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VIDE CIRCULAR NO. EP 30(13)/88-VOL. IV DTD. 12.8.02.** ## **// TRUE COPY //** ## **P.A TO JUDGE.** ## **SB** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** ## **===================== O.P No.21474 of 2002 - F** ## **====================== Dated this the 09[th] day of December, 2015** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, an employee of the Food Corporation of India (F.C.I) seeks the additional incentives as granted by Ext.P1. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, but none appears for the F.C.I. 3. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Gr.III in the year 1978. The petitioner in addition to the qualification of graduation, also had an L.L.B. He was appointed as Assistant Gr.III and while he was continuing in service an incentive scheme was introduced by the Corporation, by Ext.P1. The scheme was to motivate the employees of the Corporation, to acquire higher professional qualification, so as to effect recruitment to higher posts from the lower cadre itself. It was thought that this would **2** O.P No.21474 of 2002 - F create an atmosphere of professionalism in the working of the Corporation and would also be an additional incentive to the employees, to gain higher qualifications and thereby, aspire for a faster career progression. 4. The courses, which were approved for grant of incentives was also indicated, which included L.L.B. A further clarification was issued at Ext.P2 that only those officials, who have acquired the higher qualification, while in service would be granted the said additional incentive and those who were appointed with the higher qualification would not be granted such incentives. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would try to buttress his claim on the ground that the essential qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Gr.III, was merely a graduate degree, which he had, with the additional qualification of L.L.B. It would be discriminatory to grant an incentive to another employee who has acquired a similar qualification, while **3** O.P No.21474 of 2002 - F declining it to one who had acquired it earlier. A ground of discrimination can be validly raised only when the classification is made between equals and when it does not have any nexus with the intention sought to be achieved. The scheme introduced as per Ext.P1 was intended to motivate the employees of the Corporation to acquire higher qualification. Only if the employees are so motivated and acquire higher qualification, would the incentive be an entitlement to them under the scheme. An employee who already had the qualification at the time of entry into service would not be entitled to such benefit, since then it would defeat the very purpose of the scheme 6. A person, who had acquired the higher qualification, earlier to the appointment in the respondent Corporation, would not be so entitled for the additional incentive since he cannot be said to have been motivated by the scheme. The petitioner could have also for reason only of the circular tried to acquire other **4** O.P No.21474 of 2002 - F higher qualifications, specified in the scheme itself after it was introduced. The qualification already acquired by him, which was over and above the qualification required for the post to which he was initially recruited, would not entitle him to the benefit under the scheme. That would defeat the very purpose of the scheme, which was intended at motivating the employees to acquire higher qualification, while in service. 7. To that effect, is the decision of the Hon'ble v. Supreme Court in **Food Corporation of India and others Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh and another [2012** **(2) SCC 307]** , which considered the identical scheme. It was held that a grant of incentive, to in-service employees, for acquiring a higher qualification, while declining the same to in-service candidates, who had already such higher qualification, before appointment to the Corporation, was not discriminatory. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner then would point to paragraph 14, wherein Circular No.27/2000 dated **5** O.P No.21474 of 2002 - F 09.11.2000 was referred to, which permitted new recruits to be granted pay, at par with the pay drawn in the previous employment, before joining FCI. The Hon'ble Supreme Court merely noticed the said circular to observe that even new recruits had some benefits and no declaration flows from such observation. 9. It is also to be specifically noticed that the petitioner joined in the year 1978 and the above referred Circular is of the year 2000. Here the contention also is not that the petitioner was employed elsewhere and joined the Corporation with a lesser pay. The contention is that the petitioner had a higher qualification, which ought to have been considered for a higher pay, when Ext:P-1 was introduced, which claim has already been negatived. It cannot at all be said that the petitioner could claim the benefit of the Circular of 2000 also, since it was long after the petitioner entered service, and could be applied to fresh recruits after the introduction of the circular. **6** O.P No.21474 of 2002 - F For all the above reasons, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same would stand dismissed. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs. **Sd/K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE** SB/10/12/2015 // true copy // P.A to Judge.