CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
BENCH, BANGALORE
TRANSFERRED APPLICATION No.394/2010
DATED THIS
THE TH DAY OF .............. , 2012
HON'BLE
Dr. K.B. SURESH ... MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE
SMT LEENA MEHENDALE ... MEMBER(A)
1. Sri M.R. Siddagangaiah,
Aged
about 46 years,
S/o Sri
C. Ramaiah,
Staff
No.4490,
Deputy
Manager (Civil),
Tender
and Claims Department,
Kudremukh
Iron Ore Company Limited,
Kudremukh
577 142.
2. Sri N. Mallikarjuna Swamy,
Aged
about 45 years,
Staff
No.4491,
Deputy
Manager (Civil),
Pollution
Control Department,
Kudremukh
Iron Ore Company Limited,
Kudremukh
577 142. ... Applicants
(By
Advocates M/s. Subba Rao & Co.)
Vs.
1. Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Limited,
Registered Office at II Block,
Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 034.
2. The General Manager
(Personnel & Administration),
Kudremukh
Iron Ore Company Limited,
II Block,
Koramangala,
Bangalore
– 560 034.
3.The Director,
(Production and Projects,
Kudremukh
Iron Ore Company Ltd.,
Kudremukh
577 142.
4. The Union of India,
represented by its Secretary
Ministry
of Steel & Mines,
"Udyog Bhawan",
New
Delhi – 110 001. ... Respondents
(By
Advocate Smt. Subha Ananthi for R-1 to 3 )
O R D E R
Hon'ble Smt.Leena Mehendale, Member (A) :
This TA No.394/2010 has been earlier
filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as Writ Petition No.25273/2005
and on 09.03.2010, the Hon'ble High Court observed that both the learned
counsels have submitted that the matter be transferred to the CAT as the CAT is
vested with the powers to adjudicate the issues involved in this case. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be
tansferred to CAT. Thus, this TA
No.394/2010 has come up to be heard by this Bench.
2. The Respondent, KIOCL (Kudremukh Iron
Ore Company Limited), is a public sector undertaking and the 2 applicants M.R.
Siddagangaiah and N. Mallikarjuna Swamy, seek appointment on superannuation
terms at par with other comparable employees.
The Respondent KIOCL, is engaged in the work to exploit Iron ore in
Chickmagalur District. Its second
important mandate is of exporting Iron Ore.
It was set up in 1976.
3. The applicants were appointed as Junior
Manager (Civil), through an open advertisement and the conditions of
appointment is at Annexure-'C'.
Initially, they were placed on probation and later were issued an order
of confirmation as seen at Annexure-'F', dated 9.2.1993. This order states that all the terms and
conditions of their appointment in the company shall remain unaltered. This would imply that the appointment of both
the applicants in the company was only for 3 years as seen from Annexures-'D'
and 'E'. It would also imply that as per
clause 13 of Annexure-'D', they would be eligible for leave, LTC, Provident
Fund, Gratuity, medical benefits, etc.
4. It is the claim of the applicants that
although their original appointment with the respondents was a contract appointment
and was to terminate on 19.1.1995, they were, in the meanwhile, given a letter
dated 28.6.1994, to say that the contract period was extended upto 31.3.1996,
as at Annexure-'G'. Thereafter, the 2
applicants were promoted to the next higher post of Assistant Manager vide
order dated 12.3.1996 (Annexures-'J' and 'J-I') in the scale of
Rs.5400-9050/-. Here, once again they
were to be treated as on probation for an initial period of 12 months or till
actual confirmation in writing.
Thereafter, once again another promotion was given to the post of Deputy
Manager (Civil) in the scale of Rs.14500-18700/- by order dated 02.7.2001 at
Annexures-'K' and 'K-1' and their seniority was to count from 1.7.2001. By an exactly similar order, the competent
authority had also promoted 9 officers to the cadre of Deputy Manager
(including the 2 applicants) and several Junior Managers to the post of
Assistant Managers and Junior Engineers to Assistant Engineers or junior
officers or Private Secretaries, etc. (Annexure-'L').
5. Thereafter, similar
orders as the original terms were issued to extend the contract period from
time to time and the last contract was to end on 31.12.2005.
7. It is the case of the applicants that
on 23.3.1996, that the Respondent PSU had issued appointment orders on
superannuation terms in some cases. This meant that in the earlier contractual
appointment which had a time limit of 3 years as sampled at Annexure-'E',
clause 16 would stand modified to the following extent:
"....your
services in the company shall stand terminated as and when you complete 58
years age, provided always that your services shall be liable for termination
at any time before you attain 58 years of age, by giving 3 months notice, in
writing of by paying 3 months basic pay in lieu thereof."
8. Thus, the applicants
pointed out 4 cases at Annexures-'S','S-1',
'S-2' and 'S-3' of 4 junior persons, who were no longer required to get
their term renewed after every 3 years of contract, but could carry on till the
age of 58, subject to termination by giving a 3 months notice. Those 4 Assistant Managers were given Superannuation
Terms just 10 days after the present
applicants had also received their promotions as Assistant Managers. It is seen from Annexures-'T', 'T-1' and
'T'2' that similar service condition was also given to 3 other employees as
back as in 1985-86. Thus, it is
obvious that such superannuation term was not givn to all employees, but, only
to a few selected employees and as a
rare occassion. Hence, we feel that
applicants cannot claim any benefit..
9. The 2 applicants also
gave representation for considering their cases for conversion of their
appointment on superannuation basis.
While the first applicant gave his representation on 13.4.2004, the 2nd
applicant submitted his representation on 17.2.2005 as seen from Annexures-'B'
when they were both already promoted to the post of Deputy Manager (Civil) on a
time bound contract basis.
10. Since, both the
applicants did not receive any reply from the respondent PSU on their
representations dated 13.4.2004 and 17.2.2005, they filed Writ Petition No.25273/2005
on 21.11.2005, seeking the remedy that the respondent employer should grant
them the benefit of appointment on superannuation terms. Further, they have also prayed for an interim
order directing the respondent PSU not to terminate their services.
11. We find that both the
applicants who were appointed as Deputy Managers on probation on 2.7.2001, were
confirmed for a 3 year period by order dated 6.7.2002 at seen at
Annexure-'P'. The name of the 1st
applicant is seen at Sl. No.1, but, not the name of the 2nd
applicant and the learned counsel has not thrown any light on it.
12. While the matter was
thus lying before the Hon'ble High Court, the Respondent PSU, having realised
that the appointment of the applicants as Deputy Managers by order dated 6.7.2002
(Annexure-'D') was only for a period of 3 years as per the initial terms and
conditions of appointment, issued orders dated 3.1.2006 (Annexure-'W') which
reads thus:
"Sub: Cancellation of
allotment of Quarter No.487/ FC/II of Kudremukh Township.
- Notice for Vacation & Surrender of Co's
quarters.
---
We have been informed by the
Personnel Department/KIOCL vide its Office Order No.239/2005 dated 30.12.2005
that "in pursuance of letter No.Pers/ 014/260/2033 dated 19.05.2005 the
tenure of contract appointment of Shri M.R. Siddagangaiah, Staff No.4490, Dy.
Manager (Civil), Maintenance Planning Department, KIOCL, Kudremukh stands
automatically terminated with effect from 31.12.2005 (AN).
Accordingly Shri M.R. Siddagangaiah
stands released from the services of the Company with effect from 31.12.2005
(AN)."
As per the provisions of the Estate
Manual, the allotment of Quarter will also stands cancelled with effect from
the day, such persons ceases to be on rolls of the Company. Hence, the allotment of Co's Quarter No.487/FC-type/Sector II made in
your favour vide Allotment Order No.43/04 dated 08.12.2004 is stands CANCELLED
and you are advised to vacate and surrender the above Quarters under occupation
by you to Land & Estate Section/KIOCL, immediately, failing which you will
be treated as an Unauthorised Occupant and apart from levying the Commercial
rental & other charges at the prevailing tariff/rates, legal action will be
also taken against you to take bak the above quarters, under the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1971."
13. The order itself implied that the
applicants having stood released from the services of the company with
effect from 31.12.2005, they were to vacate the company quarters allotted to
them. This order dated 3.1.2006 was once
again taken up before the Hon'ble High Court by way of IA-1/2006 in which, it
was prayed that the Respondents had refused employment from 1.1.2006, but,
since the petitioners had been staying in the company quarters for 13 years and
at the stage of the the notices for vacation by way of Annexure-'W' and 'W-1',
they were concerned about their children who were studying and their School
certificates, examinations, etc., they prayed for an interim stay of the order
dated 3.1.2006 for vacation of the quarters.
To this, the Hon'ble High Court has ordered thus:
"After
hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the
respondents on IA-1/2006 for stay, the respondents are hereby directed not to
implement the threatened action under letters dated 3.1.2006, addressed to the
petitioners vide Annexure-W and W-1 to IA-1/2006, for a period of four months,
pending for the orders in this petition.
IA-1/2006 is ordered accordingly."
It is therefore, obvious that the applicants had stood disengaged by
the PSU w.e.f. 31.12.2005 and did not succeed in getting stay of termination
but persuaded only the question of vacating company quarters.
14. Thus, we see that the
interim prayer made in Writ Petition has neither been pressed nor been granted
by the High Court during the perion 2005-2010, when the matter was lying before
the Hon'ble High Court. The interim
prayer was to direct the respondents not to terminate the services of the
applicants. This was not granted. The main prayer is to grant an appointment to
the applicants on superannuation basis.
As explained earlier, the appointment on superannuation basis would mean
that there would be no break in service after every 3 years from time to
time. This prayer has already become
infructuous as the Respondent PSU has not extended the contract period of the 2
applicants which has come to an end on 31.12.2005. By the time, the writ petition was filed on
21.11.2005, the applicants knew that their contract was to end on
31.12.2005. We therefore, see no merit
in the OA.
15. The tenor of IA-1/2006
also makes it clear that the applicants had accepted as fate accompli, the fact
of the end of their contract on 31.12.2005 and that their prayer in Writ
Petition along with I.R. For not ending the contract has become infructuous and
hence IA 1/2006 has remained restricted only to the extent of retaining the
quarters.
15. In view of the above, we
also hold that the said interim order of stay has come to an end with this
order and the applicants should vacate the quarters within the next 2 months
failing which, the respondents shall be entitled to take necessary legal action
including imposition of penalty rent.
15. With the above
observations, the OA is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
(LEENA MEHENDALE) (Dr. K.B. SURESH)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER
(J)
psp.
No comments:
Post a Comment