Sanjiv Khanna, J. - (1.) The question raised in the is whether the respondents (except Sandeep Kumar Swaroop), who are working as Assistant Hydrogeologists, a Group -B post in the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB for short), are entitled to benefit of the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS). Sandeep Kumar Swaroop, the first respondent in WP(C)No.1473/2017, who is presently working as Scientist-B seeks ante dating of his promotion under the FCS.
(2.) The respondents, in Writ Petition No. 9413/2016, 33 in number, had filed OA No.4547/2014, which has been allowed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) vide order dated 7th January, 2016, holding that the benefit of FCS should be extended to the respondents in view of the order dated 3rd March, 2011 of the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal passed in OA No.1004/2010, which stands affirmed by the Calcutta High Court vide decision dated 8th October, 2012 in W.P.C.T. No.102/2012, Union of India and Ors. v. Tarun Mishra and Ors. The Tribunal also observed that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in its order dated 30.11.2010 passed in W.P. No. 24452/2010, Sri Vinay Vidyadhar and Ors. v. Government of India and Ors. , had approved the decision dated 18.04.1999 of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 1032/1996 which was earlier upheld by the High Court vide order dated 10.09.2008 passed in W.P. No. 22349/1999 ,Union of India represented by Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources and Anr. v. V. Sambasiva Rao . These decisions hold that the petitioners were under an obligation vide O.M. dated 28.05.1986 as modified by O.M. dated 9.11.1998 to implement the FCS for Grade-B posts. SLP(C) CC No. 7347/2009 preferred against the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 10.09.2008 in V. Sambasiva Rao (supra) was dismissed by the Supreme Court in limine, after condoning the delay, recording that in the facts of the case they were not inclined to interfere. The Tribunal, we would observe, has not independently referred to the relevant provisions of different notifications and rules to examine the contention whether FCS was applicable to Group B posts.
(3.) The respondents in WP(C)No.1473/2017, six in number, had filed OA No.3761/2013. The first respondent had sought ante-dated promotion as Scientist-B, whereas respondent Nos. 2 to 6 had sought promotion to Scientist-B posts under the FCS from the date of acquiring eligibility. The respondents had claimed parity with their junior colleagues, i.e. Dr.Sudheer Kumar and Praveen Kumar Gandharthi, who had filed O.A Nos.370 and 371/2010 before the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal for upgradation to the level of Scientist-B under the FCS.;