Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 1517
High Court of Delhi
BADAR DURREZ AHMED & V.K. JAIN
Indian Council Of Agricultural Research & Another
Versus
Am Bilas Mehto & Others
W.P.(C) 2975 & 3030 OF 2012
Decided on : 21-05-2012
For the Petitioners:B.S. Mor, Advocate.
For the Respondents:V. S. R. Krishna, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that options exercised by employees regarding the governance of service rules should be interpreted to operate prospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Headnote:
Technical Service Rules - Employment Dispute - Circular No. 18-1/97.Estt/V dated 03.02.2000, Circular dated 19.10.2006 - Old Technical Service Rules, New Technical Service Rules - Options for governance - Retrospective effect
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute regarding the governance of technical employees under Old and New Technical Service Rules, and the retrospective effect of options exercised by the employees.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents were initially governed by the New Technical Service Rules and had received promotions under those rules. The court held that the options exercised in 2006 were intended to operate prospectively, not retrospectively, and the withdrawal of promotions by the petitioners was unfair and untenable in law.
Issues: The main issue was the retrospective effect of the options exercised by the employees in 2006 and the legality of the withdrawal of promotions granted under the New Technical Service Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since there was no indication that the options exercised in 2006 would operate retrospectively, they should only take prospective effect from 2006 onwards. The conduct of the petitioners also indicated that their understanding was that the options were to operate prospectively.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the view taken by the Tribunal and finding no merit in the arguments raised by the petitioner. The respondents were allowed to continue in their positions under the Old Technical Service Rules with effect from 2006 onwards.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.
CAV 516/2012 inWP(C) 2975/2012
The learned counsel for the caveators/ respondents is present. The caveat stands discharged.
WP(C) 2975/2012 & CM 6422/2012 and WP(C) 3030/2012 & CM 6542/2012
1. These writ petitions are directed against the common order dated 04.11.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA Nos. 4094/2010 & 4096/2010. As a result, we are disposing of the said writ petitions by a common order and / or judgment.
2. The respondents in both the petitions had initially been appointed as T-1/ Fieldman in Category – I with the petitioners. Subsequently they were promoted to the Grades of T2 and T-1-3, all within Category – I. They were in the Grade of T-1-3 with effect from 01.01.1994. At that point of time, they were governed by the Technical Service Rules which were existing and which we shall now designate as the Old Technical Service Rules. In the year 2000, to be precise, on 03.02.2000, New Technical Service Rules were brought into force by the petitioners. At that point of time, a circular No. 18-1/97.Estt/V dated 03.02.2000 was issued by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). Paragraph 2 of the said circular carried the details with regard to the changes made in the existing (Old) Technical Service Rules. Paragraph 3 of the said circular dated 3.02.2000 made it clear that the modifications, as set out in the aforesaid paragraph 2, would take effect from the date of issuance of the notification. More importantly, the said paragraph provided, inter alia, as under:-
“Any existing technical employees who may like to be governed only as per the existing technical service rules may do so by specifically exercising an individual option in writing to the Director of the Institute within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of this notification. Option once exercised shall be irrevocable and final.”
3. Two of the respondents in the said writ petitions, namely, Dharam Singh and Khushi Ram exercised the option for being governed by the New Technical Service Rules. However, the other respondents did not indicate any option. It is apparent that, by default, they would be governed by the New Technical Service Rules as is evident from a plain reading of the above extracted portion of paragraph 3 of the circular dated 03.02.2000.Thereafter, in the year 2000 itself, the said respondents were promoted to T-3 in Category – II with effect from 03.02.000, that is, the date on which the New Technical Service Rules came into operation. Subsequently also, on 03.02.2005, the respondents were promoted to T-4, which was also in Category – II. Thus, it is clear that the respondents had taken the benefit of the New Technical Service Rules after they came into operation in the year 2000 and thereby got two promotions from T-1-3 in Category – I to T-3 in Category – II and from T-3 in Category – II to T-4 in Category – II.
4. Thereafter, in the year 2006, on account of requests for fresh options from all quarters, by virtue of a circular dated 19.10.2006, ICAR decided to allow an opportunity of exercising a fresh option to the employees with regard to their choice of being governed by the Old Technical Service Rules or the New Technical Service Rules. A similar circular was also issued by Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) on 14.11.2006 with reference to the ICAR circular of 19.10.2006. It is an admitted position that IARI is one of the institutes of ICAR.
5. In the said circular of 19.10.2006 issued by ICAR, while it has been pointed out that the New Technical Service Rules are the ones that were introduced on 03.02.2000, it had not been made clear that those persons, who exercised the option in the year 2006, would be dealt with retrospectively, with effect from 03.02.2000 under the New Technical Service Rules.
6. The respondents were under the impression that on their exercising the fresh option which was offered to them in the year 2
