Adhoc broken spells in higher posts do not count for increments under FR 26 on regular promotion; claims barred by limitation post-retirement.

ORDER

Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member

Applicant is a former Skipper in Fishery Survey of India. He had started his service as Bosun in Fishing Harbour, Visakhapatnam on 05.01.1979. He is a Matriculate and also holds certificate of Skipper issued by the Mercantile Marine Department, MMD for short, Ministry of Shipping. Highlighting Annexure-A1 table, it is submitted that by virtue of his holding the certificate issued by the MMD, he was made to hold higher responsibilities as Mate Grade-I and Skipper while holding the substantive post of Bosun, on various spells of service. He states that he had been ordered to work as Mate Grade-I on adhoc basis for 1 year and 9 months (647 days) and as Skipper for 2 years and 4 months (868 days). Thus, as enjoined by FR 26, broken spells of officiation in the higher posts make him eligible and entitled to be counted for advanced increments in the higher posts on fixation of pay on promotion on regular basis. So, he contends that he is eligible and entitled for promotion on his pay with increments in the higher posts for the period he occupied higher responsibilities based on the provisions in FR 22(1). Even though he made numerous representations, none was considered. He has highlighted Annexure-A6 communication issued by the Senior Administrative Officer addressed to the 3^rd respondent recommending to grant him increments as requested as per the then Rules in force as done in the case of one Sri.V.J.Joseph, Ex-Skipper. He also placed reliance on Annexure-A8 O.M. dated 12.12.2013, clarification issued by DoPT which enables the invocation of FR 26 for counting broken spells of officiation in higher posts for increment.

2. Earlier, since his representations were not considered, he moved this Tribunal with O.A.542/2020, which was disposed of on 17.11.2020 at the admission stage itself, directing the respondents to consider the representations and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three moths. However, the respondents have rejected the claims through Annexures-A10 and A11. Thus he seeks to set aside Annexures-A10 and A11 and a declaration that he is eligible and entitled for increments for the period worked on adhoc/temporary basis as Mate Grade-I and Skipper as per FR 26 on the lines of the benefits granted to Sri.C.A.Gopi and Sri.V.J.Joseph in identical situations and to direct the respondents to grant and reckon additional increments for the period he had worked on adhoc/temporary basis.

3. According to the applicant, his claim has been considered erroneously and was rejected without due application of mind. The contention that he had held higher duties and responsibilities as Mate Grade-I and Skipper is not disputed. But the 4^th respondent has issued Annexure-A11 misquoting FR26 as if the applicant “while officiating in a post or holding a temporary post on time scale of pay is appointed to officiate in a higher post or to hold a higher temporary post, his officiating or temporary service in the higher post shall, if he is re-appointed to the lower post, or is appointed or re- appointed to a post on the same time scale of pay, count for increments in the time scale applicable to such lower post." It is perverse and opposed to facts and ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C)No.34378/2003 dated 29.11.2003. According to him, the respondents have failed to appreciate FR 26 and FR 35 in its correct perspective.

4. According to the applicant, the contention in Annexure-A11 that he was assigned duties of Mate and Skipper against leave vacancy/ad