Facts
The applicants, V.S. Tewari, R.P. Gupta, M.L. Kushwaha, and B.S. Sethi, were initially appointed as Checkers in the Ordnance Equipment Factory, Kanpur, between 1973 and 1974.
Source reference: p.3, p.6, p.7They sought re-designation as Lower Division Clerks (LDC) from their initial appointment dates, based on the Kalyanwala Committee Report of 1952, which recommended classifying matriculate Checkers with three years of service as LDCs, and the Ministry of Defence O.M. dated 17.11.1953, which accepted this recommendation.
Source reference: p.3, p.7This O.M. was acknowledged by the Ordnance Factory Board on 05.03.1980.
Source reference: p.8The applicants contended that the Ordnance Equipment Factory Board did not adopt these recommendations, leading to numerous litigations.
Source reference: p.7Previously, some applicants, including V.S. Tewari, filed O.A. No. 836/2001 before the Tribunal, which was remitted back to the respondents to reconsider the matter in light of the Kalyanwala Committee recommendations.
Source reference: p.4, p.6In compliance, the respondents passed speaking orders dated 15.06.2009 and 23.01.2010, denying the benefit, citing the Ordnance Factory Board letter dated 05.03.1980, which stated that the post of Checker would be abolished in a phased manner.
Source reference: p.4, p.6, p.8The respondents argued that a similar O.A. (No. 331/1991) by similarly placed employees, including V.S. Tewari and B.S. Sethi, was dismissed as time-barred and meritless on 07.11.1997, and their subsequent writ petition was also dismissed.
Source reference: p.5The applicants were promoted from Checker to LDC (eg., R.P. Gupta on 03.10.1979), then to UDC, Assistant, and finally to Office Superintendent, retiring with a higher pay scale.
Source reference: p.4, p.6They contend that they should have been treated as LDC from their initial appointment and granted benefits like ACP.
Source reference: p.4, p.7The respondents maintained that the O.A.s were time-barred and devoid of merit, as the applicants had already received multiple promotions prior to the ACP scheme (introduced on 09.08.1999) and the posts of Checker and LDC were never merged.
Source reference: p.5Issues
1. Whether the applicants are entitled to have their initial appointment treated as Lower Division Clerk instead of Checker from the date of their initial appointment in the year 1974, despite the Ordnance Factory Board's policy decision in 1980?
Source reference: p.7, p.82. Whether the applicants are entitled to benefits under the ACP/MACP scheme for financial upgradation, given their multiple promotions to higher posts?
Source reference: p.7, p.9Law Applied
The tribunal considered the Kalyanwala Committee Report of 1952 and the Ministry of Defence O.M. dated 17.11.1953, which recommended redesignating matriculate Checkers with three years of service as Lower Division Clerks.
Source reference: p.3, p.7It also referenced the Ordnance Factory Board's policy decision dated 05.03.1980, which stated that the post of Checker would be abolished in a phased manner, and that persons with matriculation or three years of service were eligible for promotion to LDC.
Source reference: p.7, p.8The Adventurous Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, introduced on 09.08.1999, which provides for two financial upgradations in promotional hierarchy after 12/24 years of regular service, was also a relevant legal provision.
Source reference: p.5, p.9Reasoning
The Court noted that the Ministry of Defence O.M. dated 17.11.1953, based on the Kalyanwala Committee Report, was acknowledged by the Ordnance Factory Board only on 05.03.1980.
Source reference: p.8The applicants were initially appointed as Checkers in 1974, and at that time, they did not challenge their appointment to the Checker post.
Source reference: p.8Their grievance regarding their initial appointment arose after similar employees from other defence units litigated the issue, with a Civil Appeal decided on 13.11.1973.
Source reference: p.9The Tribunal underscored that the applicants were promoted from Checker to LDC and subsequently to higher posts like UDC, Assistant, and Office Superintendent.
Source reference: p.4, p.6, p.9This indicated that their upward movement was through promotions rather than automatic absorption or re-designation from the initial date of appointment.
Source reference: p.8The policy decision of the Ordnance Factory Board dated 05.03.1980 stipulated the phased abolition of the Checker post and promotion eligibility, which was duly followed in the applicants' cases.
Source reference: p.8Since the applicants had already received multiple promotions, they were deemed ineligible for financial upgradation under the ACP/MACP scheme, which applies when no promotion is received within the specified period.
Source reference: p.5, p.9The previous dismissal of O.A. No. 331/1991, which involved similarly situated employees, further reinforced the finding against the applicants' claims, suggesting that the 1953 memorandum and related judgments did not apply to them.
Source reference: p.5Holding
The Tribunal held that the applicants' contention to treat their initial appointment as Lower Division Clerk could not be accepted.
The O.A.s were dismissed as being devoid of merits, as the applicants had been promoted through regular channels from Checker to LDC and subsequently to higher posts, making them ineligible for further financial upgradation under the ACP/MACP scheme.
Source reference: p.9The impugned orders dated 15.06.2009 and 23.01.2010 were not interfered with.
Source reference: p.9All pending MAs were deemed disposed of.
Source reference: p.9There was no order as to costs.
Source reference: p.9Original Court PDF
V.S. Tewari v. Union of India [Original Application No. 670 of 2012 (Connected with O.A. No. 671 of 2012, O.A. No. 672 of 2012, O.A. No. 673 of 2012)]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in