Sunday, October 16, 2011

T.A. NO.293/2010 on 16-03-2011

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

T.A. NO.293/2010

WEDNESDAY, DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011

HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE SHRI V. AJAY KUMAR ...MEMBER(J)


Veerappa
S/o late Nagappa Nandennavar,
Aged about 48 years,
Junior Telecom Officer, (Indoor),
O/o S.D.E. (Phones),
Saundatti, Dist. Belgaum. ...Applicant

(By Advocate Shri M.B.Nargund)

Vs.

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Karnataka Telecom Circle,
Swamy Vivekananda Road,
Halasuru, Bangalore – 08.
Rep. By Chief General Manager(T),

2. General Manager (Telecom),
Belgaum Telecom District (BSNL),
Swaroop Plaza Building,
Tilakwadi, Belgaum – 01.

3. Assistant General Manager (Admn),
O/o General Manager (Tele),
Belgaum Telecom District,
Swaroop Plaza Building,
Tilakwadi, Belgaum – 01. ...Respondents

(By Advocate Shri N.Amaresh)


O R D E R (ORAL)

HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)


In this TA which was earlier filed as W.P. No.25352/2005(S) on 20.11.2005 before Karnataka High Court, the applicant prayed for refixation of pay as per his options. The learned Counsel for respondents submits a letter dated 18.3.2006 stating that the official had opted for:

- 2 -


4. Revised date of effect for fixation of pay from the date of increment in the lower grade i.e., technician on OTBP promotion.
5. Grant of increment on 1.1.1996 on the revised scale (As per Note 2 of Rule 7 of 1996 pay rules)
6. Pay fixation from the date of promotion on TTA.

He further submits that accordingly, a letter has been issued dated 18.3.2006 by the Senior Accounts Officer (Cash), Bangalore to the Assistant General Manager (Admn), Belgaum to refix the salary of the applicant as per the option given by him. Subsequently, a letter was issued on 7.6.2006 by Senior Accounts Officer, Belgaum to their Head Office at Bangalore stating that the pay arrears have been drawn for the applicant as per instructions dated 18.3.2006. Subsequently, once again the Assistant General Manager, Belgaum has informed the Senior Accounts Officer, Head Office Bangalore that the pay fixation case of the applicant has been regulated in the month of April 2006.

2. In view of this letter and the documents submitted with it, it is seen that the relief prayed for by the applicant has been granted by the respondent department. Accordingly, TA No.293/2010 is disposed of. As requested by the learned Counsel for applicant, liberty is given to the applicant to approach the respondent department with consequential prayer, if he has any.


(V. AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

OA No. 494 OF 2009 on ?????????-10-2010

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH : BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 494 OF 2009

TODAY, THIS THE .........DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010

HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ... MEMBER (A)

HON'BLE SHRI V. AJAY KUMAR .. MEMBER (J)

Anthony Steven,
S/o (Late) Daniel Crasta,
Aged about 40 years,
working as Group D,
Koramangala VI Block Post Office,
Bangalore – 560 095.
r/o No.19/2, 9th Cross, Maruthinagar,
New Extension, Madiwala,
Bangalore – 560 068. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri B. Veerabhadra)
Vs.
1. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Bangalore South Division,
Bangalore – 560 041.

2. The Principal Chief Post Master General,
Postal, Karnataka Circle, Palace Road,
Bangalore – 560 001.

3. The Director of Postal Services (HQ),
O/o the Principal Chief Post Master General,
Postal, Karnataka Circle, Palace Road,
Bangalore – 560 001.

4. The Union of India,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communication and Information Technology,
Dak Bhavan, Parliament Street,
New Delhi – 110 001. ... Respondents
(By Advocate Shri N.Y. Guruprakash,
Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel)

O R D E R

Hon'ble Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A) :

The cannons of good governance requires that departmental seniors pay timely attention to seemingly minor issues of staff such as posting, regularisation etc., which leads to better employee motivation and reduces number of lititations. We find that the present application necessitates this reminder.
- 2 -
This application is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the applicant seeks to be brought under perview of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and not under the perview of new pension scheme which is effective from 1.1.2004 and under which he has to make certain monthly contribution towards his future pension. Further the applicant prays for stoping the recovery from his salary under new pension scheme.

2. The applicant is a Group D employee working as a Casual Labour in the Department of Posts. The convention of the Department is to take casual labours, after fulfilling some conditions including one about number of days of work, are given a temporary Group D status (TS). Thereafter on fulfilment of some further conditions including condition for work in TS for 3 years, they are given a permanent Group D status.

3. The claim of the applicant is that he was given temporary status on 29.11.1989 and completed 3 years in that status on 29.11.1992, after which, he became eligible to be given a permanent status, although the same was actually given to him only on 26.4.2006. In the meantime, he was allowed to draw his monthly increments too. The Department, acting under the instructions of the Department of expenditure contained in OM No.F.No.1(7)(2)/2003/TA/19 dated 14.1.2004, (Annexure R1 - introduction of the new pension scheme) asking the employees who are appointed after 1.1.2004 to pay a monthly instalment towards Pension contribution. The employees appointed before 1.1.2004 were covered under the old CCS (Pension) Rules of 1972 and therefore, not required to make any monthly Pensionary contribution. The claim of the applicant is that the date of eligibility as a permanent status as Group 'D' employee entitles him to the pensionary benefits under the old scheme and therefore, no monthly contribution is due to be deducted from his salary. The claim of the Respondent department is that since the applicant was actually granted permanent status only on 26.4.2006, he is not covered
- 3 -
by the CCS (pension) scheme of 1972 but, only by the new Pension scheme and therefore, must pay the monthly instalment.

4. This application has a past history which is relevant. The applicant was actually regularised as Group 'D' permanent status on 19.4.2006 but his pay was fixed at the minimum of the scale of Rs.2550-3200 thus ignoring all the increments he had drawn while working as Group 'D' TS. His representation was rejected by stating that his pay in the entry grade was fixed at minimum as the amount drawn as wages prior to appointment as Group'D' permanent status could not be counted for pay fixation . However, this goes contrary to the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training vide their memorandum dated 9.5.2008 which states that the pay of the casual labour with temporary status on their regularisation against Group 'D' post will be fixed after taking into account the increments already earned by them in the Group 'D' payscale. While the department seems to have observed these instructions during the period he was working as a casual labour with (TA), the same benefit was rejected when he was given the permanent stauts. Being aggrieved he filed an OA No.221/2008 which was decided by this Bench on 7.11.2008 directing the respondent department to give him all the benefits of the increments drawn while working as casual labour (TA) and refix his pay and also give him all the arrears in the matter. The said decision also makes a reference to consider his petition dated 14.12.2007 asking formaking his past service as casual labour (TA) eligible for pension and other pensionary benefits. Further, in that OA the applicant had requested as below-
"Orders may also be passed protecting my past services making it eligible for pension and other pensionary benefits".

Dealing with question of pension as prayed for this Tribunal had directed as below:
It is for the applicant to pursue the matter further with the respondents regarding counting of service rendered as Temporary Status Casual Labour (after completion of 3 years as Temporary Status Casual Labour). ........ If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the respondents regarding counting of past service, he is free to approach this Tribunal if his grievance is based on sound grounds."


- 4 -
5. In response to the request of the applicant dated 14.12.2007 for counting of his services as casual labour (TS) towards pensionary benefits or the directions of this Bench in the OA mentioned above, the department has not yet come to any decision. In effect his pensionary benefits stand granted only w.e.f. 19.4.2006 i.e., the date of his regularisation in Group 'D'. The applicant claims that the effect of this order is severe because the new scheme of pension introduced w.e.f. 1.1.2004 necessitates the employee to pay a monthly amount towards contribution to his provident account, this being in great contrast to the older scheme of pension (CCS (Pension) Rules 1972) under which the employee was not required to make any pension contribution. The representations made by the applicant dated 15.12.2008 (Annexure A3), 3.8.2009 (Annexure A4) and 5.10.2009 (Annexure A5) were not considered by the respondent department despite the direction of this Tribunal in OA No.221/2008. Hence the applicant has filed this OA for directing the respondents to hold him eligible under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and stop his recovery towards pension contribution.

6. The learned Counsel for applicant argued mainly on the ground that the applicant was given casual labour temporary status on 29.11.1989 and after completion of 3 years was entitled to be given regular status in Group 'D' w.e.f. 29.11.1992. It is due to the delay caused by the department that he was given permanent status in Group 'D' only w.e.f. 17.4.2006 and that too without considering the benefits of the annual increments drawn by him while serving as casual labour (TS). Thus he was entitled to a permanent status in Group 'D' w.e.f. 29.11.1992 as well as to pensionary benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In support he has submitted at Annexure A6, the letter dated 30.11.1992 of Department of Posts under Swamy's compilation. This is a clarification as to the pension and terminal benefits, under which at para-5 a Supreme Court judgement dated 29.11.1999 has been quoted that on completion of 3 years of continuous service with TS the casual labour shall be treated on par with the temporary Group 'D' employees of the Department of Post and would thereby they are entitled to such benefits as are
- 5 -
eligible to Group 'D' employees on regular basis. Further at para-5.2.3 there is a clear mentioned of pensionary benefits to be given on the same lines as in case of temporary employees appointed on regular basis. Further, the learned Counsel for applicant has quoted at Annexure A8 the decision given by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Mumbai in OA No.639/2007 where it was held that the service rendered under temporary status should be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits after regularising as a regular Group 'D' official. The Mumbai Bench further observed that if a certain applicant has completed 3 years of service after being confered temporary status then he is entitled for pension. Thus the Mumbai Bench has held that service rendered even as temporary status is to be counted for pensionary benefits after the said casual labour is regularised. The Mumbai Bench have also relied on the judgement given by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Badri and others V. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others (2004 (1) AISLJ (CAT) 204) which also held similarly.

7. The learned Counsel for the respondents although relied on the averments made in the reply statement, also conceded that the sole ground advanced by the respondent department was that the actual order of putting the applicant as regular Group 'D' official was w.e.f. 17.4.2006. He, however, conceded that in view of the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal the claim of the applicant appears justified. He pointed out the portion in the reply statement to say that : "However, the matter was taken up with the Director General, Department of Posts, New Delhi (Respondent No.4) to take decision regarding counting of service for the purpose of pension and terminal benefits, extension of benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, for which the reply of the Director General is still awaited." However, Respondents-2&3 have failed to mention what efforts they have taken to remind the D.G.

8. In view of the above, we see no reason for allowing the department to wait till the decision of the D.G. We hold that the applicant became entitled to permanent status
- 6 -
on the date of the completion of 3 years as casual labour (TS) i.e., w.e.f. 29.11.1992 and must be given the pensionary benefits under older Scheme i.e, CCS (CCA) Rules, 1972. As such,
(a) the department must issue orders holding him eligible for pensionary benefits under the Rules, 1972 w.e.f. The date when he was granted casual
labour Temporary status.
(b) discontinue recovery towards contribution under new scheme and
(c) refund the money recovered, so far, if any – towards pension.
In view of the judgement of Mumbai Bench in OA No.639/2007 the responsdent had a responsibility not to allow this application to linger on. Therefore the department is well advised to take a review of all such representations pending with them and proceed to grant relief on the lines as indicated by the Mumbai Bench. We reiterate that there is no substitute to administrative efficiency and the Government Department have a responsibility to ensure efficient redressal of grievances of their employees failing which they only increase the work of the Tribunal and cause undue hardship to genuine employees. The present case being a classic example of the same, we deem it fit to impose a cost of Rs.2000/- on the department.
The application is thus allowed. The relief directed at (a), (b) and (c) above should be given within 2 months. No order as to costs.


(V. AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)
sd.







CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH : BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.494 OF 2009

Draft judgement/order in the above said OA is placed below for approval /signature.

(LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER(A)

HON'BLE MEMBER(J), SHRI V. AJAY KUMAR

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH : BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 494 OF 2009

TODAY, THIS THE .........DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010

HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ... MEMBER (A)

HON'BLE SHRI V. AJAY KUMAR .. MEMBER (J)

Anthony Steven,
S/o (Late) Daniel Crasta,
Aged about 40 years,
working as Group D,
Koramangala VI Block Post Office,
Bangalore – 560 095.
r/o No.19/2, 9th Cross, Maruthinagar,
New Extension, Madiwala,
Bangalore – 560 068. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri B. Veerabhadra)
Vs.
1. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Bangalore South Division,
Bangalore – 560 041.

2. The Principal Chief Post Master General,
Postal, Karnataka Circle, Palace Road,
Bangalore – 560 001.

3. The Director of Postal Services (HQ),
O/o the Principal Chief Post Master General,
Postal, Karnataka Circle, Palace Road,
Bangalore – 560 001.

4. The Union of India,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communication and Information Technology,
Dak Bhavan, Parliament Street,
New Delhi – 110 001. ... Respondents
(By Advocate Shri N.Y. Guruprakash,
Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel)


O R D E R

Hon'ble Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A) :


























The cannons of good governance requires that departmental seniors pay timely attention to seemingly minor issues of staff such as posting, regularisation etc., which leads to better employee motivation and reduces number of lititations.
This application is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the applicant seeks to be brought under perview of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and not under the perview of new pension scheme which is effective from 1.1.2004 and under which he has to make certain monthly contribution towards his future pension. Further the applicant prays for stoping the recovery from his salary under new pension scheme.

2. The applicant is a Group D employee working as a Casual Labour in the Department of Posts. The convention of the Department is to take casual labours, who, after fulfilling some conditions including one about number of days of work, are given a temporary Group D status. Thereafter on fulfilment of some further conditions including condition for work in TS for 3 years they are given a permanent Group D status.

3. The claim of the applicant is that he was given temporary status on 29.11.1989 and completed 3 years in that status on 29.11.1992, after which, he became eligible to be given a permanent status, although the same was actually given to him only on 26.4.2006. In the meantime, he was allowed to draw his monthly increments too. The Department, acting under the instructions of the Department of expenditure contained in OM No.F.No.1(7)(2)/2003/TA/19 dated 14.1.2004, introduced the new pension scheme (Annexure R1) asking the employees who are appointed after 1.1.2004 to pay a monthly instalment towards Pension contribution. The employees appointed before 1.1.2004 were covered under the old CCS (Pension) Rules of 1972 and therefore, not required to make any monthly Pensionary contribution. The claim of the applicant is that the date of eligibility as a permanent status as Group 'D' employee entitles him to the pensionary benefits under the old scheme and therefore, no monthly contribution is due to be deducted from his salary. The claim of the Respondent department is that since the applicant was actually granted permanent status only on 26.4.2006, he is not covered by the CCS (pension) scheme of 1972 but, only by the new Pension scheme and therefore, must pay the monthly instalment.

4. This application has a past history which is relevant. The applicant was actually regularised as Group 'D' permanent status on 19.4.2006 but his pay was fixed at the minimum of the scale of Rs.2550-3200 thus ignoring all the increments he had drawn while working as Group 'D' Temporary Status. His representation was rejected by stating that his pay in the entry grade was fixed at minimum as the amount drawn as wages prior to appointment as Group'D' permanent status could not be counted for pay fixation . However, this goes contrary to the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training vide their memorandum dated 9.5.2008 which states that the pay of the casual labour with temporary status on their regularisation against Group 'D' post will be fixed after taking into account the increments already earned by them in the Group 'D' payscale. While the department seems to have observed these instructions during the period he was working as a casual labour with temporary status, the same benefit was rejected when he was given the permanent stauts. Being aggrieved he filed an OA No.221/2008 which was decided by this Bench on 7.11.2008 directing the respondent department to give him all the benefits of the increments drawn while working as casual labour (temporary status) and refix his pay and also give him all the arrears in the matter. The said decision also makes a reference to consider his petition dated 14.12.2007 for .................. Annexure . Further, in that OA the applicant had requested as below-
"Orders may also be passed protecting my past services making it eligible for pension and other pensionary benefits".

This prayer mentions "Pensionary service as he has become Temporary Group D from 26.11.92 and accordingly modify the memo in No.B2/2-2/65-I/05-06 dated 17.4.2006 (Annexure A3) as it does not indicate the service benefits as well as the pay protection.

Dealing with question of pension as prayed for this Tribunal had directed as below:
It is for the applicant to pursue the matter further with the respondents regarding counting of service rendered as Temporary Status Casual Labour (after completion of 3 years as Temporary Status Casual Labour). ........ If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the respondents regarding counting of past service, he is free to approach this Tribunal if his grievance is based on sound grounds."


5. In response to the request of the applicant for counting of his services as casual labour (TS) towards pensionary benefits, the department has held that this cannot be done and his pensionary benefits can be granted only w.e.f. 19.4.2006 i.e., the date of his regularisation in Group 'D'. The applicant claims that the effect of this order is severe because the new scheme of pension introduced w.e.f. 1.1.2004 necessitates the employee to pay a monthly amount towards contribution to his provident account, this being in great contrast to the older scheme of pension (CCS (Pension) Rules 1972) under which the employee was not required to make any pension contribution. The representation made by the applicant dated 15.12.2008 (Annexure A3), 3.8.2009 (Annexure A4) and 5.10.2009 (Annexure A4) were not considered by the respondent department despite the direction of this Tribunal in OA No.221/2008. Hence the applicant has filed this OA for directing the respondents to hold him eligible under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and stop his recovery towards pension contribution.

6. The learned Counsel for applicant argued mainly on the ground that the applicant was given casual labour temporary status on 29.11.1989 and after completion of 3 years was entitled to be given regular status in Group 'D' w.e.f. 29.11.1992. It is due to the delay caused by the department that he was given temporary status in Group 'D' only w.e.f. 17.4.2006 and that too without considering the benefits of the annual increments drawn by him while serving as casual labour (TS). Thus he was entitled to a permanent status in Group 'D' w.e.f. 29.11.1992 as well as to pensionary benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In support he has submitted at Annexure A6, the letter dated 30.11.1992 of Department of Posts under Swamy's compilation. This is a clarification as to the pension and terminal benefits, under which ....... Further, the learned Counsel for applicant has quoted at Annexure A8 the decision given by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Mumbai where it was held that the service rendered under temporary status should be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits after regularising as a regular Group 'D' official. The Mumbai Bench further observed that if a certain applicant has completed 3 years of service after being confered temporary status then he is entitled for pension. Thus the Mumbai Bench has held that service rendered even as temporary status is to be counted for pensionary benefits after the said casual labour is regularised. The Mumbai Bench have also relied on the judgement given by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Badri and others V. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others (2004 (1) AISLJ (CAT) 204) which also held similarly.

9. The learned Counsel for the respondents although relied on the averments made in the reply statement, also conceded that the sole ground advanced by the respondent department was that the actual order of putting the applicant as regular Group 'D' official was w.e.f. 17.4.2006. He, however, conceded that in view of the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal the claim of the applicant appears justified. He pointed out the portion in the reply statement to say that : "However, the matter was taken up with the Director General, Department of Posts, New Delhi (Respondent No.4) to take decision regarding counting of service for the purpose of pension and terminal benefits, extension of benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, for which the reply of the Director General is still awaited." Although the Counsel also represents the D.G. (Respondent-3), he could not comment on the reason for pendency by the DG.

10. In view of the above, we see no reason for allowing the department to wait till the decision of the Respondent-4. We hold that the applicant became entitled to permanent status on the date of the completion of 3 years as casual labour (TS) i.e., w.e.f. 29.11.1992 and must be given the pensionary benefits under older Scheme i.e, CCS (CCA) Rules, 1972. As such,
(a) the department may issue orders holding him eligible for pensionary benefits uner the Rules, 1972 and
(b) discontinue his continuation under new scheme and
(c) refund all the money recovered, if any.
In view of the judgement of Mumbai Bench in .............. the responsdent had a responsibility not to allow this application to linger on. Therefore the department well advised to take a review of all such representations pending with them and proceed to grant relief on the lines as indicated by the Mumbai Bench in case No......... We reiterate that there is no substitute to administrative efficiency and the Government Department have a responsibility to ensure efficient redressal of grievances of their employees failing which they only increase the work of the Tribunal and cause undue hardship to genuine employees.
The application is thus allowed. The relief directed at (a), (b) and (c) above should be given within 2 months. No order as to costs.


(V. AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OA NO.489/2010 -- on 01-07-2011

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.489/2010

FRIDAY, DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2011


HON'BLE SHRI N.D.RAGHAVAN ...VICE CHAIRMAN
HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)


P.Venkat Rao,
S/o B.Appala Naidu,
Aged 55 years, working as
Section Officer (F&A),
National Aerospace Laboratories,
Vimanapura Post, Kodihalli,
Bangalore – 560 017. ...Applicant

(By Advocate Shri A.R.Holla)

Vs.

1. The Director General,
Council of Scientific & Industrial Research,
Anusandhan Bhavan,
18, Institutional Area,
2, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi – 110 001.

2. The Joint Secretary (Administration),
Council of Scientific & Industrial Research,
Anusandhan Bhavan,
18, Institutional Area,
2, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi – 110 001,

3. The Director,
National Aerospace Laboratories,
Vimanapura Post, Kodihalli,
Bangalore – 560 017.

(By Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Shri M.V.Rao)


O R D E R

HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)

This OA is filed on 6.12.2010 under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:
“(i) To quash (a) Office Memorandum No.3-4(C)/2010-E.1 dated 10.08.2010, Annexure-A4, so far as the transfer and posting of the applicant to CECRI, Karaikudi is concerned, and (b) Order No.3-8(322)7/9-E.1 dated 30.11.2010, passed by the respondent No.1, Annexure A12, asking director NAL to relieve the applicant to join at Karaikudi at the earliest.

(ii) To direct the respondents to post the applicant as Finance & Accounts Officer against the existing vacancy under the respondent No.3 in Bangalore or alternately transfer the applicant to Chennai or Hyderabad in pursuance of his representation dated 18.06.2010, Annexure -A2 and

(iii) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant who is Section Officer (F&A) in National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore was empaneled for promotion to Finance & Accounts Officer, he stands first in the order of merit. He was asked to indicate his three preferences for posting on promotion. He gave preference for Bangalore, Chennai and Hyderabad in that order. However, his actual posting order in the promoted cadre is for CECRI, Karaikudi, (Tamil Nadu). This is in disregard of his option.

3. Moreover, the applicant claims that his wife requires specialised medical treatment which is available at the 3 posting given by him as choice but are not available at Karaikudi, hence he may be retained at Bangalore in the existing vacancies. He also prayed for interim order requesting the Tribunal to stay the operation of the order No.3-8(322)7/97-E.I dated 30.11.2010 passed by Respondent-1 (Annexure A12). The interim prayed was granted on 9.12.2010 and has been extended from time to time thereafter and will continue till the date of final order.

4. The applicant gave a representation to the respondents dated 12.8.2010 as seen at Annexure A5 alongwith which he also produced a medical certificate obtained from medical officer, NAL which mentions that the wife of the applicant,

being a patient of diabetes requires medication for a prolonged period. There is also a certificate attached which only mentions that the applicant required medical treatment at NAL and it is suspected that he may have sero-negative inflammatory arthritis. His representation was forwarded to Joint Secretary, CSIR on 17.9.2010. In support of the same on 12.10.2010 his immediate Superior Officer namely Dr.Upadhya, Director, NAL requested the Head Office to retain the applicant at NAL, Bangalore by stating as follows:
“The sectioned Budget of NAL including Revenue, Capital, Networked Projects and Centrally Operated Funds is Rs.24706.840 lakhs besides sponsored/Consultancy/Grant-in-aid Projects and Laboratory Reserve. In addition the Laboratory handles two major CSIR Centres viz., C-CADSD and C-MMACS. In view of the above, there is heavy work pressure and the services of Shri Venkatarao is found to be absolutely essential for continuity and handling of Mega Projects of the Laboratory.

5. These representations were disposed of by the respondents i.e., Director General, CSIR (Respondent-1) and Joint Secretary, CSIR (Respondent-2) by the relieving order at Annexure A12 dated 30.11.2010 stating that they have considered all the requests but have concluded that the requests cannot be granted. Hence this application has been filed.

6. In their reply the learned Counsel for respondents has referred to the reply statement filed by him and has emphasised that:
(a) The transfer order has been issued in public interest and the consideration of the public interest overrides all the guidelines.
(b) The officer in the rank of Finance & Accounts Officer alongwith the Finance & Accounts for Stores and Purchases have a common cadre and are liable to be posted to any Laboratory of CSIR through out India.
(c ) The choice and preference obtained from Officers are considered only subject to availability of vacancy. His merit, revealed by his standing first does not give him a claim over a posting.

(d) The applicant was transferred to NAL, Bangalore in 2004 and has completed 7 years in the same stations.
(e) As far as the medical certificates regarding the applicant and his wife, they seem to be suffering from diseases such as diabetes, BP, Arthritis which are fairly common nowadays and require a prolonged treatment. However, they cannot be categorised as being an emergent disease requiring specialised medical attention. Further since these ailments require life-time medication it is not justified that the applicant should never be transferred out of Bangalore.

7. We also find that in para-5 of the reply statement it is mentioned that another Finance and Accounts Officer Shri Periandavar who was earlier posted as CECRI, Karaikudi from 7.4.2004 had requested for a transfer to Bangalore on the ground that he was superannuating on 30.11.2010 and that he requested to be posted at NAL where he joined w.e.f. 20.11.2009. It therefore, appears that this officer namely Shri Periandavar may have retired in November, 2010 before which the transfer order of the present applicant was issued on 10.8.2010 and his representation too was replied immediately on rejecting his request. But the vacancy may have become available after 1.12.2010.

8. The learned Counsel for respondents has also stated that there are cases of many other officers in the cadre of Finance & Accounts Officer and it is obvious that some of them must be posted at such Centres of CSIR which are not necessarily big cities like Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad. Not relieving the applicant from his present posting means keeping on hold the posting of some other persons at some other stations such as in the instant case. In view of these inter-related issues involving many people it is not always possible to accommodate every officer at his choice place of posting.


9. After hearing the arguments carefully as well as after going through all the statements and annexures, we feel that there is no merit to interfere with the impugned order except for making one mention. We express our hope and trust that the CSIR administration will accommodate the present applicant as per his preference some time in future as and when the possibility arises including the possible vacancy in Bangalore. Accordingly, OA is dismissed. The interim stay is vacated. No costs.


(LEENA MEHENDALE) (N.D.RAGHAVAN)
MEMBER(A) VICE CHAIRMAN

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OA NO.479/2009 -oral -- on 21-09-2011

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.479/2009

WEDNESDAY, DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011


HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE SHRI V.AJAY KUMAR ...MEMBER(J)


Renuka S.Adiga,
W/o Sri. A.N.Ramesh,
Aged about 47 years,
Working as Sub Divisional Engineer,
O/o Principal General Manager,
Bangalore Telecom District, CTO Complex,
No.1, Cubbon Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
Resident of No.2289, Shakara Nagar 'C' Block,
Bangalore – 560 092. ...Applicant

(By Advocate Shri B.Veerabhadra)

Vs.

1. The Principal General Manager,
Bangalore Telecom District,
CTO Complex, No.1, Cubbon Road,
Bangalore – 560 001.

2. The Area Manager,
North East,
Bangalore Telecom District,
No.5, Maruthi Complex,
Chairman Papaiah Reddy Layout,
9th 'B' Main, Banaswadi Main Road,
Bangalore – 560 043.

3. The General Manager (East),
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
No.794, 1st Cross, 12th Main,
HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar,
Bangalore – 560 008.

4. The Divisional Engineer (External),
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Sanjayanagar,
Bangalore – 560 094.

5. The Chief General Manager,
Telecom, Karnataka Circle,
No.1, Swamy Vivekananda Road,
Halasuru, Bangalore – 560 008.



- 2 -

6. The Managing Director cum Chairman,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Bharat Sanchar Bhavan,
H.C. Mathur Lane,
Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. ...Respondents

(By Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Shri M.V.Rao)


O R D E R (ORAL)

HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)

Heard both the Counsel. The two short points in this matter are:
a) Adverse entries in the CR were made for the year 2002-2003 and communicated on 2.5.2003 vide Annexure A7 and after receiving a representation dated 6.6.2003 remarks at Sl.No.1,2&3 were expunged and a portion of remark Sl.No.7 was also expunged. The remaining remarks at Sl.No.4,5&6 and part of Sl.No.7 have been retained. This decision has been communicated on 17.12.2003 for which one more representation was made on 3.3.2004 by the applicant. Thereafter, she has kept silent till the date of this OA, which is filed on 22.10.2009 where there is a delay of more than 4 1/2 years.

b) The second point is that in view of the adverse remarks the time bound promotion was not given earlier. It has been given only on 1.4.2008. This is as per the Scheme of ACP which states that ACP can be withheld if the ACR shows adverse entries. It is prayed that time bound promotion should be given from 1.1.2006.

2. We have heard the Counsel on both sides and gone through the records. It is seen that prior to communicating the adverse remarks vide Annexure A7 some warnings have been given to the applicant as seen at Annexure A1, A3, A4 and A5. Prima Facie it appears that the adverse
- 3 -
entries were not made without a reason.

3. However, we will limit to the question of delay. We find that the applicant has remained quiet for nearly 4 ½ years and never pursued her representation dated 3.3.2004. we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the authorities either in retaining some of the adverse entries or in rejecting the ACP Scheme at that point of time. We also find that w.e.f., subsequent years, presumably the performance improved and she has been given ACP. Thus we agree with the learned Counsel for the respondents that the matter deserves no merits.

4. Accordingly, MA for condonation of delay as well as the OA is dismissed.


(V.AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OA NO.454/2009 -oral -- on 02-03-2011

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.454/2009

WEDNESDAY, DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2011


HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE SHRI V. AJAY KUMAR ....MEMBER(J)


Vijaya Kumar R. Sarur,
S/o Rachappa,
Aged about 40 years,
Working as Scientist 'B',
O/o the Electronic Test and Development Centre,
Department of Information Technology, STQC-Directorate,
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology,
Ring Road, Peenya Industrial Estate, Bangalore-560 058.
Resident of No.14, 4th Cross, Sidedahalli Main Road,
Bangalore -560 073. ...Applicant

(By Advocate Shri B.Veerabhadra)

Vs.

1. The Director General,
STQC Directorate,
Department of Information Technology,
Ministry of Communication and Information
Technology, Electronics Niketan,
No.6, CGO Complex, New Delhi – 110 003.

2. The Union of India,
Rep., by its Secretary,
Ministry of Communication and Information
Technology, Electronics Niketan,
No.6, CGO Complex, New Delhi – 110 003. ...Respondents

(By Additional Central Government Standing Counsel Shri M.Rajakumar)


O R D E R (ORAL)

HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)

The learned Counsel for applicant has submitted a memo seeking permission to withdraw the OA. A copy of the memo has been served on the learned Counsel for respondents who has no objection. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed as withdrawn.


(V. AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

OA NO.411/2010 -oral -- on 21-09-2011

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.411/2010

WEDNESDAY, DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011


HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE SHRI V.AJAY KUMAR ...MEMBER(J)


M.K.Chakravarthy,
S/o (late) M.M.Chakravarthy,
Aged about 76 years,
Retired Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar,
Resident of Gurukrupa Nilayam,
Ground Floor, Door No.2, Belathur,
Whitefield – Hoskote Road, Kadugudi Post,
Bangalore – 560 067. ...Applicant

(By Advocate B.Veerabhadra)

Vs.

1. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Aayakar Bhawan, Rajaswa Vihar,
Bhubaneswar,

2. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Saikia Commercial Complex,
Sreenagar, GS Road,
Guwahati – 781 005.

3. The Union of India,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
North Block,
New Delhi. ...Respondents

(By Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Shri M.V.Rao)



O R D E R (ORAL)

HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
Heard the Counsel on both sides. The crux of this case is that the applicant who was Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax at that time and has retired in 1993 was served with a charge memo on 21.9.1992, which is nearly 8 months prior to his retirement alleging 4 articles of charges. The
- 2 -
inquiry officer was appointed on 30.10.2002 after 10 years from the date of charge sheet and the inquiry was conducted as exparte as the applicant has not remained present during the inquiry. He would claim that he was bedridden and suffering from serious illness. Since three out of four charges are held as proved, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned order at Annexure A15. The IO's report was submitted vide letter dated 3.6.2005 and the penalty order was issued on 23.1.2008 which is again after a delay of 3 years.

2. The learned Counsel for applicant has argued that such an enormous delay both for appointing the Inquiry Officer and also for acting upon the report of Inquiry Officer cannot be justified. We ourselves feel that such a delay does not speak of any seriousness of the matter. The articles of charge themselves are not very serious and hence the impugned order must be quashed. The learned Counsel for respondents has very graciously agreed that with such enormous delay there is no much justification in imposing any penalty.

3. Accordingly, the OA is allowed. We also find that the applicant had made an interim prayer which is granted and which had the effect of staying the operation of the letter dated 23.1.2008 i.e., the impugned order so far as it relates to 50% cut in the pension on permanent basis. As a result of grant of interim prayer no recovery has been made.

4. The OA is therefore allowed. The impugned order at Annexure A5 is quashed. The prayer at 8.3 namely to direct the respondents to pay gratuity amount alongwith interest is also granted and we direct that the gratuity amount withheld so far shall be paid with interest at the rate of 9% per
- 3 -
anum. The said payment shall be made within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this ordered. No order as to costs.


(V.AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO.408/2007 -oral --on 30-11-2010

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.408/2007

TUESDAY, DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010


HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE SHRI V.AJAY KUMAR ...MEMBER(J)

Mr.H.P.Nagaralkar,
S/o Punjdaji,
Aged about 55 years,
Working as Assistant General Manager,
BSNL (Telecom),
Bangalore. ...Applicant

(By Advocate Shri HKS Holla)


Vs.

1. The Secretary,
Union of India,
Ministry of Information & Technology,
Department of Telecommunications,
Room No.915 Sanchar Bhawan,
20 Ashoka Road,
New Delhi – 110001.

2. The Chief General Manager,
Karnataka Telecom Circle,
Ulsoor,
Bangalore – 560 008. ...Respondents

(By Advocate Shri N.Y.Guruprakash for Respondent-1 and Shri Vishnu Bhat for Respondent-2)


O R D E R (ORAL)

HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)

In this case which was originally filed on 20.9.2007 the applicant has challenged the impugned order at Annexure A13 dated 7.8.2006. This order was passed in the name of President of India who is the Disciplinary Authority in this case. It appears from the reply statement filed by the Respondent-1 that subsequent to the impugned order another order was passed on 15.11.2007 as at Annexure R1 which arise out of the representation made by the applicant to the Hon'ble President and the said order dated 15.11.2007 is in answer to the
- 2-
representation. This order dated 15.11.2007 has been considered as a review petition to the Hon'ble President under Rule 29(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and hence has the status of a superior order to that of the impugned order.

2 It appears from the record that the applicant has not challenged this order of the President dated 15.11.2007 but has restricted his application only to the first order i.e., at Annexure A13. The learned Counsel for applicant submits that the review order of the President dated 15.11.2007 has come to be passed only after filing of the application in the present case. Further after receiving the reply statement he should have amended the OA which has not been done so far till the date of hearing.

3. We have heard the learned Counsel for applicant for some time, before this point came to the notice and after having noticed it, we feel it appropriate and just to dismiss the application as it does not challenge the review order of the President. The learned Counsel for applicant submits that he should be permitted to approach this Tribunal again by way of another application to set aside both the orders, which is allowed subject to the relevant rules. The application is accordingly dismissed.



(V.AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NO.398/2010 -oral - on 09-06-2011

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.398/2010

THURSDAY, DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011


HON'BLE SMT. LEEN MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE SHRI V. AJAY KUMAR ...MEMBER(J)


1. Smt. B.S.Chakravarti,
W/o Late Shankar B. Chakravarti,
Aged 45 years,

2. Anand Shankar Chakravarti,
S/o Late Shankar B.Chakravarti,
Aged 24 years,

Both are residing at
Post: Galagali Bilagi Taluk,
Bagalkot District – 587 117. ...Applicants

(By Advocate Shri A.R.Holla)

Vs.

1. Union of India,
By Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 011.

2. The Chief Post Master General,
Karnataka Circle,
Bangalore – 560 001.

3. The Post Master General,
N.K.Region,
Dharwad – 580 001.

4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Bagalkot Division,
Bagalkot – 587 101. ...Respondents

(By Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Shri M.V.Rao)


O R D E R (ORAL)

HON'BLE SMT.LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)

OA No.398/2010 is the plea for appointment on compassionate ground. It is agreed by both the Counsel that the application of same applicants was
- 2 -
earlier rejected for compassionate appointment upon which he had approached this Tribunal in OA No.389/2009 which was decided on 16-2-2010 in which the Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant in the light of the observation made in the order and should continue to do so for three years consecutively by going within the parameters of eligibility. The Tribunal therefore directed to give three more chances to the applicant. Accordingly it appears that the case of the applicant was considered once again but was rejected by order dated 2.8.2010 which is the impugned in this OA.

2. It, therefore, appears just and fair to us that the applicants' name should be kept in the zone of consideration and his case should be considered on two next subsequent occasions and on those occasions the degree of indigency should be compared with the other available candidates before out right rejection. Accordingly, OA is disposed of as above.


(V. AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

OA NO 382/2011 -oral -- 0n 22-09-2011

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.382/2011

THURSDAY, DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011


HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)


Sri. H.S.Sureshkumar,
S/o Late H.S.Narayana Rao,
Aged about 51 years,
Working as Engineering Assistant,
Doordarshan Kendra,
J.C.Nagara,
Bangalore-560 006. ...Applicant

(By Advocate Shri B.S.Nagesh)

Vs.

1. The Union of India,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Rep., by its Secretary,
“A” Wing, Shastry Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001.

2. The Chief Engineer )SZ)/
Additional Director General (Engg),
Office of the Chief Engineer (SZ),
All India Radio and aTelevision,
Prasara Bharathi,
Swamy Sivanandha Salai,
Chennai – 600 005.

3. The Deputy Director General,
Doordarshan Kendra,
J.C.Nagara,
Bangalore – 560 006. ....Respondents

O R D E R (ORAL)

The applicant is working in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as Engineering Assistant. He has completed 27 years of service and he has served all along not only within the State of Karnataka but near about Bangalore for 27 years. He has another 8 years service to go. He claims that he has worked in 'C' station, Tumkur. The learned Counsel would submit that a candidate once served in 'C' Station anywhere in India will not be posted to 'C'

- 2 -

Station, that is how he would like to interpret. Hence he challenged his posting to Sagar which is a 'C' Station. I have carefully seen the transfer policy submitted in the OA. I do not agree with the submission. There is no apparent justification submitted for refusing to go to transferred station, nor any imminent reason to delay the transfer for some time. Under such a situation the Tribunal should not normally interfere with administrative decisions.

OA is thus dismissed.


(LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER(A)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

OA NO 378/2009 on ????????????????-10- 2010

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH : BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 378 OF 2009

TODAY, THIS THE .........DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010

HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ... MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE SHRI V. AJAY KUMAR .. MEMBER (J)

Satish Kumar S.T.,
Aged about 36 years,
S/o late Thimmaiah,,
Working as Postal Assistant Chikmagalur H.O.,
O/o Post Master, Chikmagalur H.O.,
Resident of B.16, Postal quarters, Belt Road,
Chikmagalur – 577 101. ...Applicant

(By Advocate Shri B.Veerabhadra)

Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Post offices,
Chikmagalur division,
Chikmagalur – 577 101.

2. The Principal Chief Post Master General,
Postal, Karnataka Circle, Palace Road,
Bangalore – 560 001.

3. The Union of India,
Rep., by its Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communication and
Information Technology,
Dak Bhavan, Parliament Street,
New Delhi – 110 001.

4. The Post Master General (STA),
S.K.Regio, Palace Road,
Bangalore – 560 001. ….Respondents

(By Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Shri M.V.Rao for
Respondents-1 to 4)

O R D E R

HON'BLE SMT.LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)

This application is filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. It is the claimed of the applicant that the applicant is working in the grade of PA (Postal Assistant) to HO at Chikmagalur continuously since 12.5.2003 to 7.6.2010. The Superintendent of Post Office, Chikmagalur Division who is Respondent-1 and who is an officer with due authority, issued his transfer order dated 5.4.2010 and accordingly the applicant took charge as PA to SO at Aldur. He made a representation dated 5.7.2010 to be brought back to Chikmagalur which was considered favourably by Respondent-1 who issued an office memo dated 6.7.2010 (Annexure A4) by virtue of which the applicant joined back at Chikmagalur on 6.7.2010 itself.

3. The respondents department has however, painted a different scenario. According to this, on 15.1.2010 the respondent-1 had issued office memo for rotational transfers for the year 2010-2011 (Annexure R1) in which it was indicated that the applicant was due to rotational transfer. Immediately thereafter, i.e., on 4.2.2010 the applicant gave representation for retaining him for one more year at Chikmagalur and this was rejected by Respondent-4 who is the Post Master General, STA, S.K.Region, an authority superior to the respondent-1 and also the authority to lay down policy guidelines. Keeping in view this rejection, the rotational transfer orders issued by Respondent-1 under his office memo dated 5.4.2010 included the name of applicant who was posted as Postal Assistant, Aldur SO. Thereafter, the applicant again gave representations dated 13.4.2010 and 29.4.2010 requesting cancellation of his transfer orders and the two representations were once again rejected by Respondent-4 vide his letter dated 5.5.2010, produced at Annexure R2. In view of this the applicant joins as Postal Assistant at Aldur on 8.6.2010, then once again gives a request representation to Respondent-1 on 5.7.2010, the Respondent-1 considers it and orders his transfer back to Chikmagalur on 6.7.2010 and thus the applicant joins back as Postal Assistant, Chikmagalur on 6.7.2010. When Respondent-4 while reviewing rotational transfers in his Division observes this irregularity caused by retransfer of the applicant to Chikmagalur, he issues orders to Respondent-1 for cancellation of the same on 30.8.2010 at Annexure R3. Accordingly, the first respondent issues his official letter dated 3.9.2010 asking the applicant to rejoin at Aldur whereupon the applicant remained absent on medical grounds for 12 days during which period he also approaches this Tribunal on 17.9.2010 and obtains a stay order against his transfer to Aldur.

4. The learned Counsel for applicant has requested for quashing the impugned order dated 3.9.2010 at Annexure A6 issued by Respondent-1 transferring him back to Aldur from Chikmagalur. He claims that the said order is arbitrary, discriminatory and void and is also opposed to the Rules. But the learned Counsel for applicant has not cited any incidence whatsoever which would show any discrimination or arbitrariness or action against Rules by the Respondents. Para-4.2 and 5.2 of the application make the narration appear as if Respondent-1 had transferred him from Chikmagalur to Aldur which he obeyed by joining at Aldur on 8.6.2010 whereafter he applied for coming back to Chikmagalur and was brought back on 6.7.2010 only to be suddenly reposted back to Aldur thus making it appear to be arbitrary. However, he has chosen not to reveal the full facts about the office memo for rotational transfer which was declared as far back as 15.1.2010 and whereafter his representations not to be disturbed from Chikmagalur were repeatedly rejected by Respondent-4 (Refer representation of the applicant dated 4.2.2010, 13.4.2010 and 29.4.2010). Again at para-4.3 of he OA mentions that his representation dated 4.9.2010 at Annexure A7 has not yet been replied thus trying to create an impression of failure on behalf of the respondents. But here again, the applicant chooses not to disclose the information that his earlier three representations have been rejected. Had he mentioned this, he would have truthfully acknowledged that there was no inaction on the part of respondents. The learned Counsel for applicant has drawn our attention to Annexure R3 wherein sub-para-2 refers to the name of the present applicant showing him as Postal Assistant, Aldur SO and directing that the transfer order issued in his respect may be immediately revised as it is violative of the principles of rotational transfer followed through out in the Division. This has also been reiterated at Annexure R4 which clearly states: “Hence it is once again reiterated that no modifications of Rotational Transfers be done without obtaining the prior approaval of this office”. It is issued by Respondent-4 and is clearly with reference to the consideration shown by Respondent-1 to the applicant by way of his order dated 6.7.2010. However, combining the two, of the learned Counsel for applicant wanted to believe that read together, these two orders are unfair and contradicting to each other.

5. We cannot agree with him. The learned Counsel for respondents has pointed out that once the Head office at S.K.Region had declared the rotational transfers in January, 2010 and directed it to be applied all over the Region, it is in the interest of administrative discipline that no deviations should be made, especially when the representation of the applicant was rejected three times. Moreover, he took objection that the applicant has chosen not to reveal his knowledge of the rotational transfer list issued in January, 2010 and the three instances of rejection of his representations.

5. In view of the above, we find no merit in the OA. The grounds of his personal inconvenience are only for the department to consider as every one working in the department would have some difficulties or other to claim consideration from the seniors. But the seniors have to weigh these considerations against the administrative discipline and smooth working of the office. Clearly, this is an area where no judicial interference is warranted. Hence we have no hesitation in dismissing the case. We also consider it fit to impose a token cost of Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred only) on the applicant for not revealing complete information in his OA. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed.


(V.AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

373/2011 -oral -- on 19-09- 2011

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.373/2011

MONDAY, DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011

HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)


S.Kalpana,
W/o B.K.Srinivasan,
Aged 49 years, working as
Postal Assistant, Tumkur Division,
Residing at 'Vivek',
Indira College Road,
Upparahalli,
Someshwarapuram,
Tumkur – 572 102. ...Applicant

(By Advocate Shri A.R.Holla)

Vs.

1. Union of India,
By Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001.

2. The Postmaster General,
South Karnataka Region,
Bangalore – 560 259.

3. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Tumkur Division,
Tumkur – 572 102. ...Respondents


O R D E R (ORAL)

The learned Counsel for applicant submits that the Child Care Leave which is the entitlement of the applicant only till the child attains the age of 18 years has been denied by the respondents. The applicant claims that her only child namely a son has already attained the age of 16 years and is studying PUC. The respondents has rejected the leave application on the ground of heavy pendency of office work. This ground looks unjustifiable given that every Government Office always has high pendency and given that the respondents have not indicated when they would accommodate the leave prayer. Hence it is
- 2 -

directed that the respondents shall consider the application as per the provisions of the rules and entitlement mentioned in office memorandum dated 7.9.2010 and pass a speaking order within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the leave has to be rejected the respondent department shall indicate the months in which they will grant the leave.

OA is thus disposed of with above directions.


(LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER(A)
sd.

NO.368/2009 --on ?????????????-08-2011

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.368/2009

DATED THIS THE DAY OF AUGUST, 2011


HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE SHRI V.AJAY KUMAR ...MEMBER(J)


Dr.Onkara Naik P.,
S/o Late Parasa Naik,
Aged about 48 years,
designated Senior,
Educational Assistant,
Office of the Regional,
Museum of Natural History,
Sidhartha Layout,
Mysore. ...Applicant

(By Advocate Shri Izzhar Ahmed)

Vs.

1. Union of India,
through the Secretary,
Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Paryavaran Bhawan,
CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi – 110 003.

2. The Director,
National Museum of Natural History,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi – 110 001.

3. The Scientist in-charge,
Regional Museum of Natural History,
Sidhartha Nagar,
Mysore – 570 011. ....Respondents

(By Additional Central Government Standing Counsel Shri S.Prakash Shetty)

O R D E R

HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)

This OA is filed on 11.8.2009 under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and raises the issue whether certain age relaxation is available to the applicant or not for considering him for a promotional post.

2. The impugned notification No.G.S.R. 222(E) dated 30.3.2009 is at Annexure A5 and the prayer is -
“to set aside the said notification as illegal, arbitrary and without considering the reasonable class of group so far as age limit is concerned and direct the respondent-01 to consider the case of the applicant to t he post of Scientist-B vide No.C(vii) Post No.7/NMNH in the Newspaper Advertisement No.01/05/2009-P.III dated 20.06.2009 at Annexure A8”.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is working as Senior Educational Assistant at Regional Museum of Natural History (RMNH for short), Mysore which comes under Ministry of Environment & Forests. He belongs to reserved category namely Scheduled Caste. He claims that within the department he has no channel for promotion. But can compete for direct recruit post of Scientist Grade B within his department.

3. The respondents published a newspaper advertisement for recruitment under the recruitment rules of 1987 as amended on 30.3.2009. The said notification is at Annexure A8, and it appeared on Employment News dated 20-26/6/2009. Under this, three posts were notified for Scientist Grade 'B' by direct recruitment and their categorization was SC-1, OBC-1, unreserved-1. The applicant applied and appeared for the selection for the said post. However, the said notification prescribed an age limit of 35 years and relaxable as per rules for Scheduled Caste candidates. Hence his candidature was rejected, the applicant being over-age. Therefore this OA. He has also requested for interim prayer to allow him to attend the viva-voce Test on the basis of advance copy of the application dated 30.7.2009 and the interim order was granted on 1.4.2010 permitting the applicant to attend the viva-voce test and directing that the assessment made in the viva-voce test are to be kept in a sealed cover till this OA is finally disposed of. Thus the applicant has also attended the viva-voce.

4. The grounds urged by the learned Counsel for applicant are as follows:
A] As quoted in para-6 of the OA the recruitment norms issued by the Government regarding age limit as per the notification dated 23.9.1987 (RR 1987) were as follows:-
Age limit and Experience for Direct recruitment:-

The upper age limit for Scientist grade 'SD' and below shall be 35 years and for grades higher than Scientist “SD” shall be 50 years. There shall be no upper age limit in respect of officers already working in the department. In case of the Government servants other than officers working in the department, the age limit shall be relaxable in accordance with orders issued by the Central Government from time to time in this regard.

Thus, in the RR of 1987, there was no age limit for departmental candidates. The Ministry of Environment and Forests had been following these rules for their various subordinate offices including the office of the RMNH.

The said category 'SD' has been redesignated as Scientist 'C' in the year 2004. Thus the upper age limit for all Scientist by direct recruitment for the grade of Scientist 'C' and below is 35 years, but with no upper age- limit for departmental candidates. The applicant was eligible under this for selection to grade B.

B] The department issued a newspaper notification for the appointment to the post of Scientist 'C' and 'B' under direct recruitment basis as early as in January, 2000. But did not fill all the 3 posts of Scientist 'B' then notified, instead they had left one vacancy as unfilled. This is borne out by Annexure A2. There the department had made it clear that “for candidates already working in
the Ministry of Environment and Forest and its attached and subordinate offices, there shall be no upper age limit”

C] Subsequently another newspaper notification was issued on 19.5.2007 once again for direct recruitment and on the basis of the same RR 1987. They again reiterated that “There shall be no upper age limit for candidates already working in the Ministry of Environment and Forests and its attached and subordinate offices”. However, as the department did not find any suitable candidate, the selection was deferred. Thereafter, once again another notification dated 8.12.2007 was issued in which one vacancy was notified for the post of Scientist 'C' for which the applicant was allowed to appear for selection in the viva-voce conducted on 2.6.2008 but was not found suitable for the post of Scientist 'C' , this third notification also once again reiterated that there would be no age limit for the departmental candidates appearing for this direct recruitment post, and the permission granted to applicant for viva-voce for that post confirms the above principle.

All this tells us above the tradition followed by the department while the RR 1987 was in force.

5. Now we come to the impugned notification issued vide No.GSR 222(E) dated 30.3.2009 which has the effect of amending the earlier RR of 1987. The Rule-6 of the said new set of rules states that “Provided that the upper age limit shall be relaxable in respect of Government Servants upto five years in accordance with the instruction or orders issued by the Central Government”.

6. Applicant claims that prior to this amendment in the new RR of 30.3.2009, the department had 3 vacancies for the post of Scientist 'B' hence he made a
- 5 -
representation dated 16.6.2009 to the department for considering him against one of those posts but the same was rejected on the ground that amended recruitment rules dated 30.3.2009 under which an age relaxation of only 5 years was applicable and the applicant had already crossed the age limit after age relaxation. In the meantime a newspaper notification dated 20-25/6/2009 was also issued for filling up the post of Scientist 'B'

7. Hence he must be given the benefit of unlimited age relaxation as was the norm prior to 30.3.2009 because these posts include vacancies which existed prior to the new RR and which were carried forward. The new rule which purports to restrict the age relaxation for departmental candidates only up to 5 years should not be made applicable to his case and his chance of promotion as Scientist 'B' should not be restricted on the ground of age bar in persuasion of new rules. If permitted, this would be his last chance for getting the higher post as his present post has no promotional avenue

8. The learned Counsel for applicant has cited from AIR 1983 SC 852 – Y.V.Rangaiah and others Vs.J.Sreenivasa Rao and others and State State of Andhra Pradesh and another Vs. J.Sreenivasa Rao and others.

“ In that it was laid down by the Apex court that vacancies which occurred prior to amended rules would be governed by old rules and not by new rules. Hence a panel should have been prepared in 1976 and transfer or promotion should have been made out of that panel”.

9. The learned Counsel for respondents have argued that the OA should be rejected in limine. He agrees that the old Rule-6 of the Department of Environment, Forests and Wildlife Scientific Group “A' posts Rules, 1987 had a
provision that there shall be no upper age limit for the candidates who are working in the Department, where as for all others the upper age limit was thirty-five years for posts below Scientist “C' [erstwhile Scientist 'SD']. As per the new Rules, however, the age relaxation available to the departmental candidates appearing for viva-voce against the down graded post for Scientist 'B' is not available. The applicant claims that the chart showing vacancy position as at Annexure A11 has not been revealed by the respondents. Only on demanding under RTI by the applicant, the respondents have furnished a reply on 20.8.2009 stating that the vacancy position had occurred prior to the amendment of RR 1987 Annexure A10.

10. Further during the course of hearing the learned Counsel for applicant had filed MA No.195/2010 dated 2.6.2010 which was a prayer for filing additional rejoinder. The same was allowed by order dated 4.6.2010 and the respondents' reply to the additional rejoinder has also been taken on record. However, we find that the said additional rejoinder does not state any new material fact regarding the original application, but informs us that in pursuance of the interim relief granted to the applicant on 1.4.2010, he was allowed to appear for viva-voce on 27.4.2010. Thereafter, in para-5,6,7,8 & 9 the additional rejoinder seeks to point out some alleged violations of the norms for actually forming the selection parameters and conduct of the interview by the selection board. That being so, we are not inclined to consider the questions raised in the additional rejoinder, in so far as actual conduct of interview is concerned.

11. From all these arguments of the respondents, the only one important ground which has been mentioned again and again is as stated in para-1 of the additional reply namely that notification (advertisement dated 1.5.2009) must be under existing rule (i.e., amended rule of March 2009) and not under a dead rule
(i.e., earlier RR of 1987). Department may have their own reasons for not filling up vacancies arising several years back. But whenever respondents are ready to fill up the vacancies, that recruitment must be as per RR then existing. Therefore, Y.V.Rangaiah's case is not applicable in this case.

12. We have heard both the learned Counsel carefully and also gone through all the material kept on record by them. We do agree with the learned Counsel for applicant that when the vacancies were available in the earlier years but were not filled up, the department cannot justify why the chance is denied to the applicant. We should make it clear that we agree with the learned Counsel for applicant only in part. There is a good logic when the learned Counsel for respondents says that the new notification must be under the new rules and also that the department may have their own reasons for not filling up the vacancies in the past. However, the reason for agreeing partly with the learned Counsel for applicant is the peculiarity of this OA. Here is a case of only one employee and not of a large number of employees. The employee is presently in such a cadre where he has no promotional avenue. Being allowed a fair chance to be interviewed for the selection of Grade 'B' Scientist is in relaxation of his over age, especially when such relaxation was available under older rules is his only demand and we consider it a fair demand. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the OA partly and to direct only for the purpose of the present OA and for the present applicant, that the prayer at para 8.1 and 8.2 is granted. The respondent department is directed that the applicant shall be considered for the post of Scientist 'B'. As per the interim order passed earlier by this Tribunal on 1.4.2010, the respondents have already been directed to allow the applicant for interview and keep the result in a sealed cover. Since we declare him as eligible for the interview, the sealed cover results should be declared by the respondent department and if the applicant is found suitable he should be offered the promotion for Group 'B' Scientist. Needless to mention that in case the results of the sealed cover reveal that he was found unfit on the ground of overage, then that ground shall be ignored and his suitability will be decided only on the basis of what has been mentioned regarding his educational qualification and his delivery of work as reflected in ACR.

13. OA is allowed as above. There shall be no order as to costs.


(V. AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)

sd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No.354/2011--oral --on 12-09-2011

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.354/2011

MONDAY, DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011


HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDHALE ...MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE SHRI V. AJAY KUMAR ...MEMBER(J)


K.Dhananjay,
Engineer 'C' (Under Suspension)
S/o late Sri K.Krishnappa,
Aged 38 years,
Indian Institute of Astrophysics,
Block-2, Koramangala,
Bengaluru - 560 034. ...Applicant

Vs.

1. The Director,
Indian Institute of Astrophysics,
Block-2, Koramangala,
Bengaluru - 560 034.

2. The Governing Council,
Indian Institute of Astrophysics, represented by
The Chairman,
Member (Science), Planning Commission,
Yojana Bhawan, Parliament Street,
New Delhi – 110 001.

3. The Union of India, represented by
The Secretary,
Department of Science & Technology,
Technology Bhawan, New Mehrauli Road,
New Delhi – 110 016. ...Respondents


O R D E R (ORAL)

HON'BLE SMT.LEENA MEHENDHALE ...MEMBER(A)

In this OA the applicant has put under suspension against which he has made appeal to the competent authority as seen from Annexure A4 which is given on 3.8.2011. While he is seeking remedy in the representation, we direct the respondent department to dispose of his representation at Annexure A4 with suitable reply.
OA is disposed of. The applicant will have liberty to approach this Tribunal in case he is not satisfied with the decision.


(V. AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDHALE)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)

sd.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OA NO.349/2011 --oral --on 06-09-2011

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.349/2011

TUESDAY, DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011

HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE SHRI V.AJAY KUMAR ...MEMBER(J)

S.Asirwatham,
aged 51 years, S/o Sadayan,
Pointsman I/Viduraswattha,
Bangalore Division,
South Western Railway. ...Applicant

(By Advocate M/s.Ratioa Legis)

Vs.
1. The General Manager,
South Western Railway,
Hubli.

2. Union of India rep. By
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Bangalore Division,
South Western Railway,
Bangalore – 560 023.

3. Sr. Divl., Personnel Officer,
Bangalore Division,
South Western Railway,
Bangalore – 560 023. ...Respondents

O R D E R (ORAL)

HON'BLE SMT.LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
This OA has come up for admission praying for a correction in the Service Book regarding the entry pertaining to the date of birth. We find at Annexure A6 a representation made by the applicant to the Senior DPO, South Western Railway dated 10.2.2011. We direct the Railway authorities to suitably dispose of this representation by looking at the age after giving a chance to the applicant to produce whatever record he considers is relevant for his claim. The claim should be disposed of within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. OA is disposed of accordingly.


(V. AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OA No.347/2011 --oral -- on 14- 09-2011

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH : BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.347/2011

WEDNESDAY, DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011

HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ... MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE SHRI V. AJAY KUMAR .. MEMBER (J)

Smt. Shashikala C.,
W/o Srinivasulu,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Camera Person Grade II,
Doordarshan Kendra,
J.C.Nagar,
Bangalore – 560 006. ...Applicant

(By Advocate Shri B.S.Venkatesh Kumar)

Vs.

1. Union of India represented by
Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001.

2. Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation,
through the Chief Executive Officer,
Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001.

3. The Director General,
Doordarshan, Copernicus Marg,
Mandi House,
New Delhi – 110 001.

4. The Deputy Director (Administration),
Doordarshan,
Copernicus Marg,
Mandi House,
New Delhi – 110 001.

5. The Deputy Director General,
Doordarshan Kendra,
J.C.Nagar,
Bangalore – 560 006. ...Respondents

(By Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Shri M.V.Rao)

O R D E R (ORAL)

HON'BLE SMT.LEENA MEHENDALE ....MEMBER(A)

The learned Counsel for applicant has reasons to believe that the relief is
being granted by the respondents. Accordingly, he has filed a memo for withdrawing the OA. The OA is therefore, dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to approach this Tribunal in case applicant is aggrieved.

(V. AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)

….................................................................................

OA NO.343/2009 --oral --on 21- 09-2011

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.343/2009

WEDNESDAY, DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011


HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE SHRI V.AJAY KUMAR ...MEMBER(J)

Shri T.B.Shankar,
Aged about 50 years,
S/o late Patel Basave Gowda,
Ex Branch Post Master,
Thattekere BO,
Nagamangala Taluk. ...Applicant

(By Advocate Shri S.K.Mohiyuddin)

Vs.

1. Union of India,
through Secretary,
Department of Post,
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001.

2. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Mandya Division,
Mandy – 571 401.

3. The Director of Postal Services,
S.K.Region,
Office of the Chief PMG,
Palace Road,
Bangalore – 560 001. ...Respondents

(By Additional Central Government Standing Counsel Shri N.Y.Guruprakash)

O R D E R (ORAL)

HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)


Heard the learned Counsel for applicant. None is present for the respondents. The short matter before us now is that the applicant was served with a charge memo of 17.3.2006. Inquiry was completed, article 1 and 4 of the charge has been held as proved while article 2 and 3 has been held as not proved by the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority has imposed a punishment and the applicant has filed appeal against the same to the competent authority on 6.6.2008. As per the Rule and procedure prescribed under the Departmental Enquiry Manual, the appeal has to be disposed of within six months. We find that the Appellate Authority has not fulfilled this obligation. The learned Counsel for applicant submits that he will be satisfied if a direction is given to the Appellate Authority.

2. The submission of the learned Counsel is allowed. We direct Respondent-3 i.e., the Director of Postal Services, S.K.Region, Bangalore to dispose of the appeal within three months by passing a reasoned order. At the request of the learned Counsel, we also direct the Appellate Authority to give personal hearing to the applicant before disposing of the the appeal. The OA is thus disposed of. No order as to costs.


(V.AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, October 15, 2011

OA NO.318/2009 --on --12- 03-2010

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.318/2009

FRIDAY, DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010

HON'BLE SHRI B.VENKATESWARA RAO ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE SHRI LEENA MEHENDALE ....MEMBER(A)

1. Sri G.Srinivasan,
S/o V.Gopal,
Aged about 55 years,
Working as PHO (mcm),
MES Staff No.198251,
Office of Garrison,
Engineers (AF),
Hebbal, Bangalore,
Residing at No.45,
Nagena Palya, M.S.Nagar Post,
Bangalore – 560 033.

2. Sri M.Anbazhagan,
S/o late Manickam,
Aged about 44 years,
Working as DES (mcm),
MES No.198245,
Office of Garrison
Engineers (M),
Hebbal, Bangalore-6.
Residing at No.1551/02,
6th Cross, Kanakanagar Layout,
Lingarajapuram Extension,
Bangalore – 560 084.

3. Sri L.Srinivasa,
S/o Laxmaiah,
Wireman (elect HS),
Aged about 47 years,
G E (AF), Hebbal,
Bangalore
MES No.198252,
Nellorahalli,
While Field Post,
Bangalore – 560 066.

4. N.Ramesha,
Aged 43 years,
S/o late Narasimhaiah
MPA (FGM HS), MES No.198337.
GE (AF) Hebbal,
Bangalore 6
Residing at No.11/2,
Hosakerehalli Road,
Opp: Agromase Limited,
Ganapathi Nagar,
Mysore Road,
Bangalore 560 026.
- 2 -

5. N.Gopinath,
S/o late G.Narayanan,
Aged 46 years, MES No.198234,
Wireman (Elect HS),
GE (AF) Hebbal,
Bangalore 6
Residing at No.15,
E.No.5th Street,
Old Madras Road,
Ulsoor, Bangalore 560 008.

6. C.Shankarappa,
Aged 48 years,
S/o late H.Channappa,
DES (MCM), MES No.198233,
GE (AF), Hebbal,
Bangalore – 6,
Residing at No.132/12.
III Floor,
MES Key Personal Quarters,
Command Hospital Air force,
Agaram Post,
Bangalore – 560 007.

7. R.Srinivasan,
Aged 43 years,
S/o late C.G.Raju Naidu,
MPA (MCM), MES No.198339,
GE (AF), Hebbal,
Bangalore 560 006,
Residing at No.132/2,
MES Quarters,
Command Hospital (AF)
Agaram Post,
Bangalore -560 007.

8. Fyrose Pasha
Aged 44 years,
S/o Abdul Basheer,
Electrician (HS),
Appointed as Lineman,
GE (AF) Hebbal HQTC
Bangalore 560006
MES No.198222,
Residing at No.131/3,
MES Quarters,
Command Hospital (Air Force),
Agaram Post,
Bangalore – 560 007 ...Applicants

(By Advocate Shri Vishnu Bhat)

Vs.



- 3 -

1. Union of India,
Represented by its
Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block,
New Delhi – 110 011.

2. Chief of the Army Staff,
Army Headquarters,
New Delhi 1110 011.

3. Engineer in Chief,
Army Headquarters,
New Delhi 110 011.

4. Chief Engineer,
Southern Command,
Pune.

5. Commander Works,
Engineer (AF) (North),
J.C.Nagar,
Bangalore.

6. Chief Engineer(AF),
No.DG Area MES Road,
Yeshwanthapura,
Bangalore – 560 022.

7. Garrison Engineer(Air Force),
Hebbal, Bangalore – 560 006. ...Respondents

(By Additional Central Government Standing Counsel Shri S.Prakash Shetty)


O R D E R

HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)

This application is filed under the Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. This case arises out of non-application of an appropriate pay scale of Rs.950-1500 per month to the 8 applicants from the date of their recruitment as professionals working with different designation as skilled workers.

2. Briefly the case is that the 8 applicants were selected and recruited as Electricians/MCM during the year 1987-88 as skilled workers. Even though they were to be fitted in the regular pay scale of Rs.950-1500, they were to
- 4 -
remain on probation for 2 years. During this time they were appointed to the pay scale of Rs.800-1150. Only on completion of the said probation period they were given the skilled grade of Rs.950-1500. It is further the case of the applicant that in other Defence Establishments, employees similarly placed are being straight away placed in the pay scale of rs.950-1500 on being appointed under skilled category.

3. It is further their case that many of their similarly affected colleagues approached C.A.T., Madras Bench under OA Nos.950/1995, 368/2001, 252/2001, 991/2002 while some more similarly affected colleagues approached the C.A.T., Bangalore Bench under OA Nos.111/1991, 663/1991, 50/92 and 80/92 all seeking the remedy that they should be put in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500 right from their date of employment. The distinction between their services as probationers and their services as confirmed staff should be done away with. It is further the claim of the applicants that some of the earlier stated orders of the C.A.T., Bangalore Bench were brought before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.11486 and 11487 of 1996 and Hon'ble Apex Court inter alia directed the authorities to refix the original pay scales of these employees in accordance with law after examining their grievances. On such reexamination these specific people were all granted the pay scale of Rs.950-1500 with consequential benefits from the date of their appointment.

4. The learned Counsel for the applicants then went on to further point out that in the year 2002-2003 11 more persons similarly situated like the applicants represented to the respondents to grant the pay scales of Rs.950-1500 right from the date of appointment and failing to get the redressal from the respondents they approached this Tribunal in OA No.461/2005 in which this Tribunal order dated 20-12-2005 directed the respondents to consider their
- 5 -
representation in the light of the Rules and above quoted judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court . The said order in OA No.461/2005 has been complied with by Respondent-1 of the present case vide Annexure A9. Thereafter, more employees of Military Engineering Service working in different offices at Bangalore requested for similar benefits and on not getting any result, approached this Tribunal in OA No.77/2007 and some more in OA No.297/2007. Once again this Tribunal in their order dated 11-1-2008 and 1-8-2008 respectively directed the Respondent-1. Hence it is the case that the present OA be allowed.

5. In reply to the above, the learned Counsel for the respondents only submitted that as per the Engineer-in-Chief's Branch Integrated HQ of New Delhi letter No.9027089/EIC dated 11 Jan 1985 as amended vide their letter No.90270/MCM/EIC dated 21 Mar 1989, individuals who are directly recruited to skilled categories are to be given the semi-skilled category's pay scale of Rs.800-1150 and after two years on completion of their probationary period they are to be brought out to the skilled pay scale of Rs.950-1500. He further pointed out that there was no discrimination in fixation of pay in respect of the applicants since the applicants are provisionally placed in the scale of Rs.800-1150 during the prescribed probationary period based on Govt. Order. Any review required in this regard shall be either through views of amendment of Govt. Orders o by compliance of court verdicts. In this case none of the option are available and hence the applicant pay fixation initially granted can not be reviewed. The learned counsel for the respondents claim that the orders earlier passed by this Tribunal in other applications were relevant and applicable only to those applications and cannot be made applicable to the present case. But he did not elaborate exactly how the two sets of cases differed.
















- 6 -
6. On hearing both the learned Counsel and after going through the records of this Tribunal in earlier OAs, we have no doubt that the application stands. The respondents are directed that the 8 applicants asking to extend them the pay scale of Rs.950-1500 per month from the date of their initial appointment and consequential benefits be granted. We are of the view that the present 8 applicants are entitled for extending these benefits which were also granted in OA No.77/2007 and OA No.297/2007. We direct the respondents to settle their claims within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, on considering the outcome of 4 applications filed with C.A.T., Madras Bench during 1995 to 2002, 4 applications filed with C.A.T., Bangalore Bench during 1991-92, the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.11486 and 11487/1996, and the 3 orders passed by C.A.T., Bangalore during 2005 to 2008 we cannot but opine that Respondents-1-4 will be well advised to have a thorough look at the Rules followed in their different establishments regarding making a distinction of pay scales during the period of probation and during the subsequent period. We direct that Respondents-1-4 should specifically review the position obtaining from the letter of Engineer-in-Chief Branch integrated HQ at New Delhi letter No.9027089/EIC dated 11-1-1985 as amended vide their letter dated 21-3-1989 and carry out the necessary corrections in view of the Hon'ble Supreme court. We direct Respondents-1-4 to complete these exercises within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order and report this Tribunal. We feel it necessary that they undertake these exercises so that more such similarly placed employees are not required to seeks redressal on an individual basis thus expending their own time and the time of several concerned parties. Their administrative action should be reported by Respondents 4 and 5 to this Tribunal within 3 months. OA is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs.


(LEENA MEHENDALE) (B.VENKATESWARA RAO)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OA No.313/2008 --oral --on 12-09-2011

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.313/2008

MONDAY, DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011


HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDHALE ...MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE SHRI V. AJAY KUMAR ...MEMBER(J)


Sri H.S.Siddagangappa,
S/o Siddappa,
Aged about 60 years,
Working as GDS Mail Delivery at Hossur,
Gowribidanur Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District. ...Applicant

(By Advocate Shri P.N.Nanja reddy)

Vs.

1. The Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Dhak Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001.

2. The Inspectors of Post Offices,
Chikkaballapur Sub-Division,
Chikkaballapur – 562 101.

3. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kolar Division, Kolar.

4. The Post Master General,
S.K.Region,
Bangalore – 560 001. ...Respondents

(By Additional Central Government Standing Counsel Shri G.Mallikarjunappa)

O R D E R (ORAL)

HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDHALE ...MEMBER(A)

MA No.289/2011: The OA No.313/2008 was dismissed for default on 12.4.2011. However, at the request of the learned Counsel for both sides the matter is reopened again today.

Heard both the Counsel. This is a case of GDS Postal employee who would be otherwise eligible for promotion as Post Man. He entered the Postal
- 2 -
Department on 9.11.1981 and became eligible for promotion in 1986. On not getting promotion he filed an OA No.393/2002 claiming promotion under reservation quota for physically handicapped. The OA was dismissed on the ground that he had not produced the certificate for physically handicapped. Thereafter, the applicant submits in the OA that he furnished the necessary certificate to the department on 22.3.2003 which at Annexure A3. However, on not getting any promotion he again approached this Tribunal by a second OA. Thereafter, he made certain claim for promotion which was rejected by the department on 31.10.2007. In that claim he had not raised the issue of his being physically handicapped. He wants to raise it now in this OA which filed on 5.8.2008 and the main ground claimed now is being physically handicapped. After producing the required certificate in 2003, he has not pursued the matter for next 5 years. Hence there is enormous delay by the applicant. Now the learned Counsel for the applicant relied on (2004) 6 SCC – Civil Appeal No.5178 of 2004 decided on 11.8.2004 – Union of India Vs. Sanjay Kumar Jain and he would like to take us to para-9 which talks about the issue of discrimination to the Government employee and does not talk of any delay committed by the applicant. Hence the said judgement is not relevant. OA is accordingly dismissed.


(V.AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDHALE)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)

sd.

OA NO.288/2009 --on 01-04-2011

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.288/2009

THURSDAY, DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2010


HON'BLE SHRI B.VENKATESWARA RAO ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)


K.Anand Naik,
S/o K.Sachidananda Naik,
Aged 45 years, working as
Material Clerk, Office of their
Deputy Chief Materials Manager,
General Stores Depot,
South Western Railway,
Gadag road,
Hubli – 580 020. ...Applicant

(By Advocate Shri A.R.Holla)
Vs.

1. Union of India,
By General Manager,
South Western Railway,
Club Road,
Hubli – 580 023.

2. Chief Personnel Officer,
South Western Railway,
Head Quarter Office,
Lakshmi Complex,
Station Road,
Hubli – 580 020.

3. Controller of Stores,
South Western Railway,
Lakshmi Complex,
Station Road,
Hubli - 580 020

4. Deputy Chief Materials Manager,
General Stores Depot,
South Western Railway,
Gadag Road,
Hubli – 580 020. ...Respondents

(By Advocate Shri N.Amaresh)

O R D E R

HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)

The case arises out of non-promotion of the applicant from the post of
- 2 -
Material Checker to the post of Material Clerk on the date of his completing 5 years of service in the post of Material Checker as per rules.
The case of the applicant in brief is as under:
The applicant was working as Material Checker in South Western Railway and on completion of 5 years of service on 20-3-2005 he should have been given promotion as Material Clerk. Instead he was promoted w.e.f. 30.5.2008. During the intervening period the Railway Board has promoted some Class IV staff to the post of Clerk-cum-Typist which carries the same pay scale as that of Material Clerk.

2. Heard Shri A.R.Holla, learned Counsel for applicant and Shri N.Amaresh, learned Counsel for respondents. The learned Counsel for the applicant argued that according to the Rules the Railway Board, for promoting Group 'D' Staff to the post of Material Clerk following Rules apply:
(i) All the material Checkers who have completed 5 years of service can be promoted automatically as Material Clerk.
(ii) If there still remains vacancy in the post of Material Clerk then the same can be filled up from the Group 'D' staff provided that such Group 'D' staff has to take an examination and if successful, can be promoted as Material Clerk.
(iii) In the event of such an examination taking place, all those Material Checkers who have not completed 5 years but have completed 3 years are also eligible for examination and for competing with the Group 'D' staff for the post of Material Clerk.

3. In view of the above provisions the learned Counsel for the applicant claim that since the applicant has completed 5 years service on 20-3-2005 he should have been given automatic promotion from that date against the post of Clerk-
- 3 -
cum-Typist which had fallen vacant on that date.

4. The learned Counsel for the respondents relied upon a very crucial technical aspect. He pointed out that the vacancies which were available on 20-3-2005 were for the post of Clerk-cum-Typist and not for the post of Material Clerk. As and when the post of Material Clerk fell vacant i.e., on 30.5.2008, the Railway Board , South Central Railway, Secunderabad had given promotion to the applicant as Material Clerk.

5. We specifically asked both the Counsel as to whether the posts of Material Clerk and that of Clerk-cum-Typist were same or different. Both the learned Counsels admitted that even though both the posts carried the same pay scale the job description of Material Clerk and a Clerk-cum-Typist were different, the Railway Board maintained and managed these two cadres separately and keeps separate seniority lists for both. All the Rules quoted by the learned Counsel for the applicant are the Rules of recruitment by promotion to the cadre of Material Clerk but they are not applicable in toto to the promotion of Clerk-cum-Typist. The applicant was given promotion to the post of Material Clerk when a permanent vacancy occurred in that cadre in 2008.

6. In view of the above the application does not stand and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.


(LEENA MEHENDALE) (B.VENKATESWARA RAO)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)

sd.