IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 :PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NOs.58691-58699 OF 2013 (S-CAT) BETWEEN 1. SANDEEP S S/O LATE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS TECHNICAL OFFICER-C AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT EST. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA R/O E-49/3 DRDO TOWNSHIP C. V. RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE 93.
2. T. SRIDHAR S/O C. M. THIRUNAVUKKARASU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS TECHNICAL OFFICER-D AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT EST., GOVERNMENT OF INDIA R/O D-17 DRDO TOWNSHIP C. V. RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE 93.
3. B. GURUMURTHY S/O D M BHASAKARACHAR AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS TECHNICAL OFFICER C AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT EST., GOVERNMENT OF INDIA R/O E-423, EWS, KHB COLONY 2ND STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BANGALORE - 93.
4. V. K. RAJU S/O VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS TECHNICAL OFFICER-C AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT EST., GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, R/O E -37/8, DRDO TOWNSHIP C. V. RAMAN NAGAR BANGALORE 93.
5. S. SREEDHAR REDDY S/O LATE S GOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS TECHNICAL OFFICER-C AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT EST., GOVERNMENT OF INDIA R/O NO.13, III CROSS I MAIN L.B. SHASTRI NAGAR HAL POST BANGALORE 93.
6. K. SRIKANTHA S/O K L K MURTHY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS TECHNICAL OFFICER-D AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT EST., GOVERNMENT OF INDIA R/O E-48/5, DRDO TOWNSHIP PHASE 2 C. V. RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE-93.
7. M. JAGANNATHA S/O MADAN MOHAN RAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS TECHNICAL OFFICER-C AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT EST., GOVERNMENT OF INDIA R/O E -48/10 DRDO PHASE II C V RAMAN NAGAR BANGALORE - 93.
8. SMT. SELVANAYAGY RAJAGOPAL W/O L RAJAGOPAL AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS TECHNICAL OFFICER-C AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT EST., GOVERNMENT OF INDIA R/O 195/1A RAVICHANDRA NILAYA 10TH I CROSS SANJEEVAPPA LAYOUT, NAGAVARA PALYA, C. V. RAMAN NAGAR BANGALORE - 93.
9. R. SREENIVASULU S/O K RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS TECHNICAL OFFICER C AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT EST., GOVERNMENT OF INDIA R/O D-24/9, DRDO PHASE II C. V. RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE - 93 (BY SRI. D LEELA KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ... PETITIONERS DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT NEW DELHI.
2. THE SCIENTIFIC ADVISOR TO RAKSHA MANTRI SECRETARY DEPTT. OF DEFENCE (R & D) AND DIRECTOR GENERAL (R&D) "B” WING, DRDO BHAVAN, RAJAJI MARG NEW DELHI 110 105.
3. THE DIRECTOR AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT EST., DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT C V RAMAN NAGAR PO, BANGALORE 93.
4. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE MINISTRY OF FINANCE NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI - 110 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, CGC) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.79/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE -38 & ON PERUSAL OF HE SAME, AND QUASH THE ORDER DT.11.01.2013, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PASSED IN THE SAID ORIGINAL APPLICATION AND GRANT CONSEQUENTIAL AND SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 30.07.2019 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, DEVDAS J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners are working as Technical Officers Grade ‘C’ and ‘D’ of Group-A (Gazetted) in the third respondent establishment namely, Department of Space, Department of Automic Energy and Defence Research and Development Organisation (‘DRDO’ for short). It is contended by the petitioners that the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, has introduced a scheme for grant of incentives in the form of variable incentives to deserving technical personnel of Defence Research & Development Service (DRDS for short) in DRDO. This scheme is also extended to Defence Research Technical Cadre (DRTC), but a discrimination has been made while extending the benefits to the DRDS, when compared to DRTC. While variable increments upto a maximum of six increments are given to deserving Scientists/Engineers (DRDS) at the time of promotion under the merit promotion scheme in recognition of their merit, however only three maximum increments are granted to the supporting Scientific and Technical Staff (DRTC). Therefore, the petitioners herein called in question the letter dated 31.08.2009, wherein the incentives to DRTC was made applicable to Technical Officers and supporting staff, before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short). The Tribunal having dismissed the application, the petitioners are assailing the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, in these writ petitions.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Union of India did not make any discrimination between Scientists and Technical Officers. While pointing out to the notification issued by the Union of India, which is produced at Annexure ‘A1’, it was submitted that the Government of India accepted the suggestion from the DRDO for granting variable increments to really deserving Scientists at the time of promotions. It is submitted that there is no difference in the pay scale of Scientists and Technical Officers. Therefore, the respondent-DRDO could not have drawn a distinction which was not provided in the scheme.
3. The learned Counsel further submits that the impugned order requires to be set aside on one another ground, which was not raised in the writ petition. It is submitted that though a Bench comprising of two Members heard the matter, one of the Members was transferred to Administrative Tribunal of another State and proper procedure was not followed in pronouncing the judgment.
4. Sri. B.Pramod, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that consequent to the directions issued by this Court, the Registrar of Central Administrative Tribunal has filed an affidavit dated 21.01.2019 providing the required information along with documents to substantiate that the learned member who was transferred to another Administrative Tribunal has forwarded the draft order for concurrence/approval of the other Member and the other Member was also requested to pronounce the order on behalf of the Bench.
5. The learned Central Government Counsel, on merits would submit that the scheme for incentives was indeed notified by the Central Government for recognizing and incentivising deserving Scientists. It is submitted that the petitioners are not Scientists. They were Diploma holders who were initially appointed in Group-C posts. Thereafter, by promotion they came to occupy Group-B Gazetted posts in Technical Grade ‘A’.
6. We have heard the learned counsels and perused the writ papers.
7. We are not impressed with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order requires to be set aside on technical grounds.
8. On the merits of the matter, we see that the petitioners herein have come to occupy Group-B Gazetted posts in Technical Grade ‘A’, by way of promotion. The petitioners are Diploma holders. Though the pay scale of Technical Group-A personnel may be same as Scientists or Scientific Advisor, the intention of the Central Government in incentivising deserving Scientists cannot be overlooked. Although, the scheme did not speak anything about non-
Scientists, as a consolation, three variable increments have been granted to non-scientists viz., Technical officers and support scientific staff.
9. The Tribunal has also rightly noticed that the Defence Research Technical Cadre Rules, i.e., SRO 177 of 1995 came into effect from 26.09.1995. Under the SRO, the grade of Senior Scientific Assistant and three other posts i.e., Junior Scientific Officer, Foreman and Chief Draftsman carrying the pay scale of Rs.2375- 3500/- were merged and placed in the grade of Technical Officer, Grade ‘A’ (Group-B Gazetted) and accordingly the petitioners herein were placed in the grade of Technical Officer-A under Rule 6(2) of the SRO. Thereafter, the petitioners were promoted to the grade of Technical Officer Grade ‘B’ to Technical Officer Grade ‘C’ and from Grade ‘C’, finally to Grade ‘D’. Therefore, we agree with the opinion of the Tribunal that the petitioners herein have been given a particular pay scale by virtue of merger of pay scale and not by virtue of their qualification.
10. We find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the writ petitions stand dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE JT/DL