Reserved CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH JABALPUR (1) Original Application No. 200/436/2014 (2) Original Application No 200/437/2014 (3) Original Application No. 200/671/2014 th Jabalpur, this Friday, the 20 day of February, 2026 HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MS MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. Dr. Mohini Saxena, D/o late Ramdayal Saxena, aged about 63 years, Retired Scientist, R/o Bhartiya Yoga Anusandhan Kendra, Near Radio Transmission Centre, Anand Nagar, Raisen Road, Bhopal (M.P.) : 462021 (Applicant in O.A. No./200/436/2014)

2. K K Kaul, S/o late S R Kaul, aged about 63 years, Retired Scientist Gr. F, AMPRI, Bhopal R/o 12 Kaushal Nagar, Near Nigam Hospital, Misrod, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.) 462047 (Applicant in O.A. No./200/671/2014)

3. K K S Goutam, S/o late S S Goutam, Aged about 66 years, Retired Scientist Gr. F, AMPRI, Bhopal R/o A/105, Sarvadharm Colony, Kolar Road, Bhopal (M.P.)

(Applicant in O.A. No./200/437/2014)

(By Advocate- Shri Munish Saini)

V E R S U S

1. Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, through its Director General, Anusandhan Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110001

2. Director/Incharge, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, (Recruitment & Assignment Board), Anusandhan Bhawan, Rafi Marg, CSIR Complex, New Delhi 110001

3. Advanced Materials and Processes Research Institute, through it’s Director, Hoshangabad Road, Near Habibganj, Naka Bhopal: 462064 (Common Respondents)

(By Advocate – Shri Rohit Gujele, proxy counsel for Shri Anoop Nair)

(Date of reserving order: 17.12.2025)

Common Order By Mallika Arya, AM.

The applicants through these O.A. is challenging the action of the respondents wherein they have been discriminated being retired employees and have not been given their due promotion to the post of Scientist Group IV (6)

by applying the amended rules which are not applicable to them.

2. The common order is being passed in these original applications as the issue involved in these Original Applications is the same.

3. Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that the applicants are retired scientists from the organization of respondent no. 3 and have had a meritorious career. The applicant no. 1 was due for promotion in the year 2010-11. The respondents framed a criteria for promotion to the next higher grade i.e.

Scientist Group IV(6)/Sc. ‘G’ for which the applicant was eligible and due. The applicant was asked to submit her future plan indicating involvement in new research areas and vision for the organization during the next 10 years along with a road map with three convincing reasons to justify the promotion to the post of Scientist G/ Scientist Group IV(6). Applicant no. 1 retired on 30.09.2010, Applicant no. 2 retired on 31.07.2010 and Applicant no. 3 retired on 30.11.2007. Since the Applicant no. 1 retired on 30.09.2010, it was not possible to give any reason or justification on the above question. Hence she was not granted promotion vis-à-vis those candidates who were considered for promotion and are currently working in the respondent department. The respondents framed the Rules known as Scientist Recruitment & Assessment Promotion Rules 2001 (Annexure A/1). The rules came into force w.e.f. 2001. The rules deals with the recruitment as well as promotion. The rules were amended from time to time and the last amendment was carried out on 20.03.2008 (Annexure A/2). As per rule 7.2 of the latest amendment the concept of ‘Peer Committee’ was brought in place. It fixed a criteria for taking into consideration the Annual Confidential Reports and the work reports for the years covered under the residuary period without holding any assessment interview. This amendment was made applicable for all the pending cases as per the decision of the governing body of CSIR which met on 22.06.2007. Applicant No. 1 was due for next promotion to the post of Scientist Group IV(6) as she had completed her residency period of five years. Hence the Assess