JUDGMENT
Bharati Ray, Member (J)
1. This application has been filed seeking for the following relief:
(a) To direct respondents to conduct the reviews provided for in the Office Order dt. 17.4.1975 read with the OM Dated 12.12.1975 of the ISRO Headquarters, Bangalore, commencing from the date of completion of 3 years of the initial appointment of the applicants in the organization and there after every 3/4/5 years till the date of their retirement, to grant promotional grades to them as per the recommendations of the review committee, to fix the pay in the respective promotional grades from time to time and pay to the applicants consequential arrears of pay and allowances and fixation of Pension accordingly and arrears of Pension by holding the action of the Respondents herein in not doing so and confining the benefit to only one upgradation contrary to the scope of Proceedings Dated 17.4.1975 and the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 17623 of 1998 Dated 2.7.2002 as bad, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational, illogical and unconstitutional;
(b) To set aside the impugned proceedings contained in Memo No. SCF/PGA/LDS/c2(71)/2003/899, Dated 6.2.2004 issued by the Respondent No.3 rejecting the claim of the Applicants respectively as bad, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational, illogical and unconstitutional. The undisputed facts of the case are that the applicants joined in the respondents organization as Lab. Technician C in the scale of pay of Rs.425-700 in the year 1974. From that date onwards they did not get any further promotion in that category. The applicants have approached this Tribunal in OA 297/1995 seeking for a direction to the Respondents to promote them to higher grades of Rs.550-750 with effect from 1997 and 1980 and pay the back wages from the date of promotion. In the said case the Tribunal has gone through the Office Order dated 17.4.1975 which states that all medical staff will be treated as falling under Technical Categories for the present and will be eligible for three year review under the terms applicable to Technical Categories. In the said case the respondents admitted that the applicants belongs to Technical Category. Therefore the Tribunal has stated that in that case the Office Order dated 17.4.1975 squarely applied to the applicants case.
2. The Tribunal disposed of OA 297/95 as under:
7. In view of what is stated above, we are satisfied that the cases of those employees who joined as Lab Technician-C needs to be reviewed once in 3 years for giving them better promotional prospects. We may not be able to indicate the further avenues open to them for promotion as it is responsibility of the respondents to determine the method to give them promotion suitably. We have no doubt in our mind the respondents will definitely undertake a review favourable to the applicants and decide their cases in accordance with the office order dated 17.4.1975. The Apex Court in the reported case 1994 SCC (L&S) 847 (State of Uttar Pradesh v. U.P. Rajya Vidhit Adhikari Karyalaya Karmachari Sangh) directed the respondents in that case to consider the case of PAs and in order to remove the stagnation provide reasonable promotion avenue to them. That direction of the Apex Court is equally applicable in this case”. The respondents in OA 297/1995 have approached the Hon’ble High Court questioning the order of the Tribunal in WP nO.17623/1998 & 8440/1999. The said WPs were disposed of with the following order:
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. OA No.297 of 1995 was filed before the Tribunal by the respondents 1 and 2 in WP No.17623 of 1998, who are the petitioners in WP 8440/1999. Their complaint was that they had been appointed as Lab Technicians-C in the pay scale of Rs.425-700 in the year 1974, thereafter they were not promoted. The Tribunal found that the Lab Technician and three grades viz., A, B and C Grade-C was the highest grade and once a person was appointed Grade-C directly, there were no promotional avenues and direction could not be given to the Government to consider the promotion of the applicants. But it is well settled now through various judgments of the Supreme Court that the State should always consider creating of promotional avenues for employees who get stagnated, even schemes for time bound promotions were framed. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal gave the direction tom consider the request of the applicants. We are conscious that we cannot frame the policies for the Government, but we are also conscious that stagnation brings incompetence. Therefore, we dispose of these writ petitions with a direction to the Union of India who are writ petitioners in W.P.No.17623 of 1998 to consider the request of the applicants who are writ petitioners in W.P.No.8440 of 1999 for creation of promotional opportunities after conducting review in accordance with office order No.12031/ISO-75/1, dated 17.4.1975.
The applicants filed contempt case No.184/2003 before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. which was dismissed on 3.3.2003. It is the case of the respondents that pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble High Court, two supernumerary posts were created and the applicants were promoted retrospectively and paid arrears, without subjecting the second applicant to the rigors of interview by the DPC applied in respect of serving employees since the second applicant retired from service on 31.7.2000. Thereafter, Applicant No.1 submitted a representation on 22.9.2003 to the Head, PGA, SDSC SHAR, Sriharikota, and the applicant No.2 to the Asst. Admn. Officer, Establishment, P&GA-I, SDSC SHAR, Sriharikota, with copies to the two respondents ventilating their grievance and requesting to conduct the review from the year 1977. The representation submitted by applicants 1 and 2 were disposed of by order dated 31.12.2003 and 6.2.2004 (enclosed along with the OA at pages 78 to 80). Assailing those memorandums, the applicants have approached this Tribunal seeking for the aforesaid relief.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant Sri J. Sudheer and Sri M.C. Jacob, learned standing counsel for the Respondents. We have also gone through the judgments of CAT and Hon’ble High Court (supra), gone through the impugned memorandums dated 31.12.2003 and 6.2.2004. We have gone through the Office Order of promotion of the applicant dated 26.8.2003 in the scale of pay of Rs.6500-200-10500. Learned Counsel for the applicant strenuously argued that when there was a categorical direction of the Hon’ble Tribunal that a review has to be conducted and then the posts are to be created, respondents are not justified in creating the posts first and then conducting the review and that they have also not conducted the review in terms of office order dated 17.4.1975.
4. The learned Counsel for the Respondents have taken a preliminary objection that the application is barred by the principle of resjudicata. It is his contention that this Tribunal in OA No.297/95 has already observed that the applicants were initially appointed directly in Group ‘C’ post and reached at the verge of retirement without being promoted and that there was no further avenue of promotion and considering all aspects has disposed of the said application (OA) with certain directions as extracted above. Therefore the same cannot be reagitated once again by filing a fresh OA. The learned Counsel for the respondents further submits that since the Hon’ble High Court while upholding the order of this Tribunal has given specific directions and the respondents, in pursuance to the directions of the Hon’ble High Court have acted upon and had created one more promotional avenue to Lab Technician in the grade of Rs.6,500-200-10,500 vide OM dated 24.2.2003 and created supernumerary posts of Lab Technician (Rs.6,500-10,500) with effect from 01-04-1998 to be operated as scale personal to S/Sri J. Edward Simon and Sh.D.Samuel (applicants herein), such action of the respondents cannot be agitated before the Tribunal through a fresh application (OA). We find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents.
5. Since, a perusal of the impugned memos shows that in pursuance of the order of the Hon’ble High Court, respondents have taken the steps as mentioned above, such action of the respondents and orders pursuant there cannot be interfered by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents have misinterpreted the order of Hon’ble High Court and therefore failed to implead the order properly. The Tribunal cannot clarify the order of Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, it is the case of the applicants that the respondents have not properly interpreted the order of Hon’ble High Court or misinterpreted the order of Hon’ble High Court, such question cannot be decided by the Tribunal. It will not be out of place to mention here that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sankar Deb Acharya and Ors. v. Union of India (para-17) has interalia said that Tribunal cannot interfere with the orders of Government issued pursuant to order passed by the High Court. In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of the opinion that Tribunal cannot entertain the OA and is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.