FCS judgments are in rem, entitling all scientists to timely promotions without vacancy wait; no limitation bar.

ORAL ORDER

Per : HON’BLE JUSTICE M.G. SEWLIKAR, MEMBER (J)

By this OA the applicants are claiming antedated promotion that is from the year 2005. They are also seeking quashing of the order dated 13^th August, 2013.

2. Facts in briefs are that applicant No.1 was appointed as Research officer on 01^st December, 1982. He was promoted as Senior Research Officer on 01^st January, 1988. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of Chief Research Officer on 04^th April, 1996. He came to be promoted to the post of Joint Director on 23^rd September, 2009.

3. The applicant No.2 was appointed as Research Officer on 24^th November, 1980. He came to be promoted as Senior Research Officer on 11^th January, 1986. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of Chief Research Officer on 7^th December, 1998.

4. The applicant No.3 was appointed as Research Officer on 05^th January, 1981 and promoted as Senior Research Officer on 01^st January, 1988. He came to be promoted as Chief Research Officer on 07^th December, 1998. All the three applicants came to be promoted to the post of the Joint Director by the order dated 23^rd September, 2009 for the panel year 2005. It is their contention that the vacancies had arisen in the year 2005 and therefore, they should have been promoted from the year 2005 but they were promoted in the year 2013 and the effect was given from the date of the order of promotion. The applicants state that they had made representation on 08^th December, 2009 followed by another representation dated 07^th June, 2010. In this representation contention was that they should be given promotion from the year 2005 with all consequential benefits. While rejecting the representation, the respondents observed that the judgements on the basis of which the applicants were relying is not judgment in rem but they were judgment in personam. Therefore, respondents refused to extend the benefits of the judgement in the case of Union of India vs R.P. Gupta and Union of India vs S. D. Rande. This order is impugned in this OA.

5. Respondents filed their reply contending that the applicants are fence sitters. They waited for judgement to be delivered and once the judgement was delivered, they have filed this OA to getting the benefits of the orders passed in this OAs. Respondents submit that the applicants are challenging the promotions of the year 2005. Therefore, the application is hopelessly barred by limitation.

6. The applicants filed rejoinder but no new point has been raised in rejoinder. The respondents filed reply to rejoinder. No new point has been raised in the reply to rejoinder either.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants Smt. Sujata Krishnan and learned counsel for the respondents Shri R.R. Shetty.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the promotion has been given to the applicants on the basis of Flexible Complementary Scheme (FCS) for scientist. She submits that the object of the scheme was to give incentive to the scientist. With this object in view this scheme was floated. She submits that it was not permissible for the respondents to wait for the vacancies to occur. They should have in advance prepared the list of candidates coming in zone of consideration. The respondents did not do that. Now respondents are contending that the judgment is not in-rem but it is in personam. She submits that the judgment of this Tribunal in the matter of Shri M.M. Kale OA No.970/98, 932/98, 933/98, 934/98, 88/99 & 89/99 of the OA dated 29^th August, 2002 is judgement in-rem. For this purpose, she placed of reliance of the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter o