Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Mum OA NO.06/2012 on 30-03- 2012

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.06/2012

Dated this Friday the 30th day of March, 2012

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE, MEMBER(A).

Shri H.R. Nandgaonkar
R/at 409 Deep Jyoti
Apartment, Opp. Fire
Brigade, Malegaon Stand
Panchwati, Nashik 422 003.   ...   Applicant
(By Advocate Ms.Priyanka M.)

VERSUS

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Through the General Manager,
Telecom Sanchar Bhawan,
Nashik 422 002.

2. The Assistant General Manager,
(HR&Admn) O/o General Manager
Telecom, Sanchar Bhawan,
Nashik 422 002.

3. The Divisional Engineer (CSC)
O/o Commercial Officer (N)
Canada Corner, Nashik 422 002.  ...  Respondents
(By Advocate Shri V.S. Masurkar)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Per: Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member(A)
Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has received his pension order and, therefore, the OA has become infructuous.
Accordingly, the OA stands dismissed as infructuous.  No costs.
    (Smt. Leena Mehendale)
                     Member(A)
dm.

OA unknown only pg 9-11 of a good case


9
employees. This is itself novel idea which deserves  compliments.  It is in this spirit that the respondents should have proceeded to locate the more meritorious employees and promote them thus giving encouragement and providing motivation.  In fact the department has done so by giving regular promotions to all the qualified candidates to the extent of vacancies up to 31.8.1990 and further by giving officiating promotions to all the remaining qualified employees from both  the circles.  We are, therefore inclined to conclude that the applicant should also be given the same benefit treating him as qualified candidate and  allowing him at least officiating  promotion.  Whether he should be given regular promotion will depend on where his seniority in Maharashtra circle was, within 516 candidates who received regular promotion. Nothing has been stated by Respondent No.4 on this point.

12.                   We therefore direct Respondent No.5 i.e., CGM, Mumbai to look at the TTA's seniority list of Maharashtra State as on 04.10.2000 and inform the applicant, as well as Respondent No.3, about his seniority status vis-a-vis those 516 TTA's of Maharashtra, who are given regular promotion.  If he is found to be senior to any of those 516 TTAs then, he would be considered as eligible for regular promotion.  In any event, the Respondent No.3 will give him officiating promotion and pass the necessary orders within one month of this decision.  If the CGM, Mumbai confirms him as eligible for regular promotion, then, the Respondent No.3 shall also give him regular promotion within one month from the date of receipt of information from the CGM, Mumbai.  The officiating
10
promotion as well as regular promotion, if due, will be given notionally with effect from the date of completion of his Phase-I training.  The Respondents have not informed us as to how they have dealt with the question of Phase=II training of the rest of the batch who were all given orders to join their duty instead of sending for Phase-II training.  If they have been given further increments without completion of Phase-II training, then the applicant is also entitled for the same, although notionally.  The actual financial benefits will accrue to the applicant from the date of filing of this OA.

13.                   OA is allowed with above directions.  No order as to costs



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

                     
bk.                      

OA 293-2009 and 241 -2008 tentative draft ????


OA 293-2009 and 241 -2008
tentative draft
Shri Somashekara S.  was working as ECRC-I when he was issued a major penalty charge sheet on 16.10.2003 and imposed with the penalty of reduction to the lower post of ECRC-II in the scale of Pay of Rs.4500-7000 from the post of ECRC-I in the scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 for one year on non-cumulative basis w.e.f. 22.9.2005.  On completion of the punishment, the applicant was restored to his original status of ECRC-I on 22.9.2006.  Subsequently he was promoted as Enquiry-cum-Reservation Supervisor in the scale of Rs.5500-9000 w.e.f. 14.12.2006 based on the seniority assigned in the scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 after the expiry of penalty.  His further promotion to Chief ECRS in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 will have to be based on a position of the employees in the inter-se seniority  of ECRS for all the Divisions  under the SW Railway, Hubli and has to be based on the combined seniority list of ECRS as on 1.7.2008 which was published on 11.8.2008.    It is further submitted that Shri Somashekara, ECRC-I w.e.f. 28.4.1989 and was issued a major penalty charge sheet on 16.10.2003.  It was not considered for promotion due to restructuring from 01.11.03  because of the pending DAR proceedings.  Subsequently, on completion of the proceedings, he was imposed with the penalty of reduction to the the lower post of ECRC-II for a period of fiver years with cumulative effect from 22.09.2005.  On appeal, this penalty was modified to reduction to the lower post of ECRC-II for a period of one year with cumulative effect.  On revision, this was further modified to that of reduction to the lower post of ECRC-II for one year with non cumulative effect.  On expiry of the penalty on 22.09.2006, he was restored to his original post of ECRC-I duly protecting the seniority, since the punishment was on non-cumulative basis.  Then he was promoted as E&RS in the scale of Rs.5500-900 from 14.12.2006 based on the seniority assigned in the scale of Rs.5000-8000 after the expiry of penalty.  The applicant is presently working as E&RS in the scale of Rs.5500-9000.

2. It is seen from the order dated 28.2.2006 in OA Nos.550 &118/2005 that Shri K.B.Rudagi and Shri Shirahatti  and also Shri P.S.Sdanand and Shri M.A.Ingle  were also subjected to the condition that some other candidates were already promoted based on other criteria  like outstanding qualifications etc., with the approval of the appropriate authority, then their seniority will remain unaffected.    The SWR was also directed to draw up a combined seniority list of E&RS in the grade of Rs.5500-9000  by applying the Rule of integration of cadres.  The effect of this order of the Tribunal was that the present applicant who had already been promoted as ECRS on 24.9.2003  and was purported  to be on adhoc basis by order in Annexure A1, again came to be regularised w.e.f.  1.11.2003.  This order produced at Annexure A4 was passed on 8.6.2006.  The order however, mentions that  “His seniority is being maintained in E&RS category is without prejudice to the claim of his senior Shri Somashekara, who is  undergoing a penalty of reduction as on date”.

3. The effects of the impugned orders are as follows:
i) Annexure A7 dated 3.9.2007 – It refers to his adhoc promotion as ECRS w.e.f. 24.9.2003 and his adhoc promotion as Chief ECRS w.e.f. 31.7.2004, then giving reference to the judgement of this Tribunal the adhoc promotion as ECRS w.e.f. 24.9.2003 stands modified as regular promotion to ECRS w.e.f. 1.11.2003 as it appears in the integrated seniority list published in CPO/UBL letters  No.SWR/P.612/Commi  dated  31.1.2007 & 5.4.2007,  it further refers to the fact that prior to restructuring on 1.11.2003 there was one vacancy of ECRS which would have gone to Shri Somashekara who is senior but for his major penalty of reversion and further that his own promotion order at Annexure A4 in the scale of ECRS which is regularised w.e.f. 1.11.2003 is subject to and without prejudice to the seniority claim of Shri Somashekara.  It  further claims that the integrated seniority list published in CPO/UBL 612 has to be of the regular employees working as ECRs as on 1.1.2003 and cannot accommodate ECRS employees who came to be ECRS against restructured  or subsequent vacancies and hence the name of the applicant appearing at Sl.No.21 in the ECRS seniority list appearing in CPO/UBL 612 would be held subject to his representation, if any, within 15 days.

4. It is quite obvious from this Annexure A7 which is written to the applicant – it has taken little consideration of only Annexure A4 which was also written individually to the present applicant but has ignored Annexure A1 dated 27.5.2004 under which regular promotion orders were issued from ECRC-I to ECRS adhoc as below:
1.  C.G.Gudigeri, Adhoc promotion as ECRS regularised w.e.f. 24.9.2003
2. S.Venugopal, Adhoc promotion  as ECRS regularised w.e.f. 1.11.2003
3. C.Raghunath, Adhoc promotion as ECRS  w.e.f.  22.03.2004 i.e., the date
     on completion of 2 years of service in his present grade.

4. V. Srinidhi, Adhoc promotion as ECRS from the date of shouldering
     higher responsibility.

It further mentioned that Shri Srinidhi who is the junior most person is promoted on adhoc basis as it will have to be reverted whenever Shri Somashekara  who is senior to all of them becomes due for promotion.  Similarly, the other three senior people are also given regular promotion without prejudice to the claim of Shri Somashekara thus being the combined seniority list of ECRS issued at Annexure A5 in response to the decision of this Tribunal mentioned the name of Shri Gudigere at Sl.No.21 and below him another 10 people who have all came to be promoted as ECRS by virtue of the order passed in OA Nos.550/2004 & 118/2005.  It is interesting to see that out of the list of 31 ECRS promotees 30 are those who were parties to the said OA and present applicant Shri Gudigere is the only member who is outside the parties of the said OA.  It would therefore appear that the Railway officers treated it fit to disturb him only for consideration of Shri Somashekara.  In doing so the Railway authorities have overlooked two aspects namely that in the combined seniority list of 31 ECRS has issued at Annexure A5 is the name seen at the lowest, but at Sl.No.21 and below there are 10 more people assigned as junior to him.  The other factor overlooked by the reviewing authorities that even if he is not a direct authority to the case before this Tribunal in OA Nos.550/2004 & 118/2005, this Tribunal in the judgement have adequately covered him by stating that those employees who have already been promoted prior to 2.11.2003 will not be applicable and that the SWR will have to count them in the combined seniority list.  It is for this reason that the applicant appears at Sl.No.21 and  not at Sl.No.31 in the ECRS seniority list as on 1.11.2003 issued by the Railway authorities on 28.2.2006.

OA No 329/2008 INCOMPLETE HERE


INCOMPLETE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.329/2008

DATED THIS THE             DAY OF JANUARY, 2011


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

Sri H.Jagannatha Rao,
S/o late Hanumantha Rao,
Aged about 55 years,
No.23, 1st Stage, II Cross,
Sudhama Nagar,
Bangalore – 560 027. ...Applicant

(By Advocate Shri N.G.Phadke)

Vs.

1. Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Labour,
Shram Shakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg,
NEW DELHI – 110 001.

2. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation,
Represented by its Director General,
Panchdeep Bhawan, CIG Road,
New Delhi – 110 002.

3. The Regional Director,
Regional Office (Karnataka),
Employees' State Insurance Corporation,
“Panchadeep Bhavan', No.10, Binny Fields,
Binnypet,
Bangalore – 560 023.

4. The Additional Commissioner (P&A),
Employees' State Insurance Corporation,
Panchadeep Bhawan, CIG Road,
New Delhi – 110 002.

5. The Insurance Commissioner,
Employees' State Insurance Corporation,
Panchadeep Bhawan, CIG Road,
New Delhi – 110 002. ...Respondents

(By Additional Central Government Standing Counsel Shri V.N.Holla)


O R D E R  (ORAL)

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

This OA is filed on 18.8.2008 under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging the impugned Order No.53/A/12/18/2002/Estt., dated 211.2.2005 at Annexure A2 and another order issued in Review Petition  on 10.3.2005 (Annexure A3).

2. The applicant claims that after getting the order at Annexure A3 he has sent further representations to the respondent department on 17.8.2005 upto 26.4.2007 (9 representations in all).  The impugned order dated 27.8.2007(Annexure A5) was only issued to him on 31.8.2007.  Thus the OA has filed within the period of one year from the date of last impugned order.  He therefore, prays for quashing the order of retirement dated 21.2.2005 at Annexure A5 and prays for reinstatement alongwith all the benefits.

3. The grievance in brief is that the applicant who was compulsorily retired from service by Annexure A2 after completion of 30 years and the same order of compulsory retirement was also upheld by  the reviewing authority vide Annexure A5.  It is claimed that the applicant who entered the service on 13.2.1975 in the Department of ESI as LDC on probation has successfully crossed several mile stones namely from probation to confirmation to promotion as UDC and promotion as Assistant and finally as promotion to the post of Head Clerk in 2002 in the pay scale of Rs.6800 which is a senior Group 'C' post.   The applicant claims that there is a background to his retirement, in brief the review order at Annexure A5 makes reference to another order dated 1.12.2005 under which a minor penalty was afflicted to the applicant by withholding his increment without cumulative effect for 2 years (Annexure A6).  The order of compulsory retirement dated 21.2.2055 has come just within 20 days of the earlier order of minor penalty.  It seems that the said order of minor penalty dated 1.2.2005 was issued after following due procedure.  The review order at Annexure A5 while referring to the order of minor penalty states that “Shri H.Jaganath Rao was appointed as LDC in Karnataka w.e.f. 13th February, 1975.  He has been awarded adverse remarks on various occasions by different officers concerning his quality of work, amenability to discipline, punctuality, obedience to authority etc.  Even his first probation report reveals that the official should exhibit better discipline and application in his work as he lacks in both.  His performance had been assessed by different officers over the years as average.  The order of the Regional Director dt. 1-2-2005 confirms a number of instances of misconduct by Sh.Rao as he was in habit of attending the office late and remaining absent without prior sanction of leave from the competent authority, for which the Regional Director had imposed penalty of withholding of increment without cumulative effect for two years.
Compulsory retirement has been imposed on him by taking into account his habit of late attendance in office, remaining absent without prior intimation, non-application of mind into rule and non-observance of discipline, adverse remarks by different officers, indifferent attitude to work, no improvement in attitude and behaviour despite several opportunities, disobedience to authority, smoking in office, demand of separate room for smoking, refusal to receive official communication, reprimand by several officers etc.  His personal record reveals that even after crossing 50 years, he had not shown any semblance of improvement in his attitude, behaviour and work thereby making him unfit to be retained in service.  However, the fact remains that he has grown up children”.  Hence it is the claim of the applicant that the impugned order at Annexure A2 and its rectification at Annexure A5 amounts to double jeopardy and the applicant has the right to be protected against this.  The second ground mentioned at para-5(d) is that the order at Annexure A2 which is passed under Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Regulation 7(2) of ESIC (Staff and Condition of service) Regulation 1959 is actually  a major penalty imposed on him when assigning any reasons or without giving him any opportunity.  The learned Counsel for applicant points out that wording at Annexure A5 which states that compulsory retirement is 'imposed' on the applicant by way of order dated 21.2.2005 (Annexure A2) (refer para     where the word 'imposed' is used) although this wording is not used in Annexure A2.  The use of the word imposed in Annexure A5 indicates the retirement was imposed on him and such an imposition is possible only by way of penalty.  His next ground at 5(c) is that as per the fundamental Rule 56 which governs the Central Government Employees and also the ESI organisation provides for the retirement of Group 'C' employee only after he has attained 55  years of age.  Hence his retirement at the age of 52 years is in violation of the fundamental rules.

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
-2-

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,
- 3-
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.
- 4 -
(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.

- 5 -
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

sd.





**** OA No 222 of 2011 (IR rejected -shortlisting for interview)


**** OA No 222 of 2011
(Interim Order rejected Grounds) --
The learned Counsel for applicant has taken us through Annexure A4 and also other citations 2003(3) SCC 541 – P.M.Latha & another Vs. State of Kerala & Others.  His main prayer in the OA is that while the applicant has submitted an application against the post of Group 'D' as notified by AG, Bangalore Office No.AG(C&CA)/Admn.I/A1/2010-11/231 dated 16-22.10.2010 for which the minimum required qualification is SSLC and the total of 57  vacancies in the open category.  However, at para-8  of the notice also indicates the office if considered necessary may adopt a system of short listing of candidates and only the short listed candidates would be called for interview.  It appears that the respondent office has actually short listed some candidates and have issued interview letters to them only leaving behind the present applicants and some more like them who are not before us.  Hence it appears just and fair to us to issue notice to the respondent department and call for their reply as to why the present applicants have not been notified for interview.  The issue for admitting this OA will be decided only after receiving reply from respondents hence the respondents are directed to file their reply within 14 days.  In view of the urgency Shri M.V.Rao, Senior Standing Counsel on behalf of the Government of India has agreed to take notice and submits that he will file the reply within 4 weeks.

It is further prayed by the applicant's learned Counsel that by way of interim relief this Tribunal may direct  the respondents  to allow these two applicants who have SSLC qualification which is the minimum prescribed qualification to appear for interview.  However, we are not inclined to do so in view of the fact that for this Group 'D' post there may be large number of candidates and the respondent department has already notified that they may adopt the procedure of short listing.  It is also stated by the learned Counsel for applicant to the best of his information that the short listing is done to candidates holding graduation qualification and excluding SSLC which is the minimum qualification prescribed.  However, in the absence of any information as to how many candidates have applied, we are not in a position to ascertain what will be the burden on the respondents if the interim prayer is granted.  The general norm which is applicable in the Government offices for selection of posts is to interview candidates in the ratio of 5:1 i.e., 5 candidates to be interviewed for one post.  However, if the number of candidates who have applied goes far beyond 5 times the posts then short listing from among the available candidates is a common procedure.  Hence  we do not see any reason at this stage to grant the interim prayer.   We would however like to mention that the respondents have to come back to us within 14 days with the information of number of candidates applied in each of the category as mentioned in their notice dated 16-22.10.2010 under which a total of 125 vacancies including all category has been notified.  The respondents should submit the information of number of applications received under each category and the number of short listed candidates under each category.  They may also indicate the criteria of short listing.  Accordingly post on 14.7.2011. Based on  these information the learned Counsel for applicant is at liberty to freshly agitate the interim prayer on the next date.
A copy of this order may be given to  both the Counsel today itself.  The learned Counsel for applicant may ensure that the learned Senior Counsel for Government gets a copy of the OA today itself.

**Imp MA in OA 524/2009


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.409/2010
IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.524/2009

TUESDAY, DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010


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

M.Ananda,
S/o Shri Dogu,
aged about 60 years,
working as Superintendent,
New Customs House,
Panambur,
Mangalore – 575 010. ...Applicant

(By Advocate Shri Izzhar Ahmed)

Vs.

1. Union of India,
through the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
North Block,
New Delhi – 110 001.

2. The Commissioner of Customs,
Ministry of Finance,
O/o Commissioner of Customs,
New Customs House,
Panambur,
Mangalore-575 010.

3. The Additional Commissioner(P&V),
O/o Commissioner of Customs,
New Customs House,
Panambur,
Mangalore 575 010. ...Respondents

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

O R D E R

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

Once again this MA No.409/2010 in OA No.524/2009 has come before us compelling us to express our displeasure at the way the department has lost the sense of efficient working.
- 2 -

2. The brief genesis of this MA is that the applicant who  is an employee of the Government of India, Department of Revenue was promoted to the post of Superintendent on 25.2.1993 and given adhoc promotion as Assistant Commissioner Custom and Central Excise on 16.10.2009.  He retired on 30.4.2010.  The department found certain cases of misconduct and found a prima facie reason of involvement of the applicant who was working as a Superintendent in March, 2008.  The department reported to the Vigilance Commission for advise stating therein that the part attributable to the applicant was only by way of procedural irregularity in his capacity as Superintendent.  However, they received a recommendation from Vigilance authorities to initiate departmental inquiry since there was a loss of revenue.

3. Accordingly, the applicant was charge sheeted for major charges on 1.9.2009 thus this is a peculiar contradiction that a person who is given a charge sheet for major penalty  on 1.9.2009 is also given adhoc promotion as Assistant Commissioner on 16.10.2009.  Consequently as is mentioned in the OA the stand of the department from the very beginning was that the applicant working as Superintendent had no major role in the particular case of loss of revenue.   It is claimed that in a letter dated 2.4.2009 to  the Vigilance authority, Respondent-2 herein state that the applicant can be exonerated from  his part as there was only a small procedural irregularity on his part.  The Vigilance has of course not agreed with this opinion of the department and have asked the department to charge sheet him alongwith the other Superintendents who were also supervising the said event concerning M/s.Freight Wings and Travels (P) Ltd., in respect of his bill entry No.703741.    In view of these the relief sought for in OA NO.524/2009 was:

- 3

i. set aside C.No.II/10A/1/2008 Vig dated 01.09.2009 (Annexure A5) and vide No.C.No.II/3/4/09E-1 dated 19.10.2009 (Annexure A9.

ii) to direct the respondents to drop the departmental inquiry.

3. The said OA came up for hearing and an order was passed on 10.6.2010 by this Tribunal.  It was observed therein that the respondent department has already began  the departmental enquiry consequent upon the charge sheet given to the applicant and which charge sheet itself was the matter of agitation in the said OA.  Hence the respondents were directed that decision in the inquiry proceedings may be taken within one month from the receipt of the order as it was also pertinently observed that already 5 months have passed since the Disciplinary Authority has received the report of the employee from the Inquiry Officer.

4. We find to our great surprise that even when the Inquiry report has been received by the Disciplinary Authority no final order is yet passed, thus creating unnecessary harassment to the employee by withholding his pensionary benefits after his retirement.

5. Unable to comply with the directions and time frame given by this Tribunal on 10.6.2010, the respondent department filed an MA No.317/2010 requesting  for grant of more time to comply with the directions, upon which an order came to be delivered on 11.8.2010.  While the MA No.317/2010 prayed for extension of time by 2 months from 10.6.2010 i.e., the date of order of this Tribunal in OA No.524/2009,  the respondent department was allowed 6 weeks time.  That also have elapsed long since and now this MA No.409/2010 has been filed once again,  this time asking for a period of 6 months.  We are not only surprised and shocked but also pained at this type of inefficiency.  The time of 6 months has already elapsed from the date of order of OA in June, 2010 and also a time of 4
- 4 -
months have elapsed from the date of extension of time granted in MA No.317/2010.  With every new MA the department seems to be requiring more time to finalise the matter than requested by them in the previous MA.  It only shows  that the senior officers in the department have no clue as to what is going on in the department.  We do not want to say any thing further at this stage.

6. The MA is partly allowed at cost, Respondent-2 shall pay a cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand ) personally to the applicant in one month.  In addition the department of Revenue shall also pay a cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand)  to the applicant within one month of this order.  Time granted to complete the departmental inquiry though already over and not acted on by the department is extended upto end of February, 2011 with the great   hope that this time the Department will not fail in completing the DE within time limit.    Ordered accordingly.   MA is thus allowed partly with the above directions.





(LEENA MEHENDALE)
     MEMBER(A)



sd.

CP No 29/2011


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.29/2011
IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.470/2009

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


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

Sri K.P.Rajappan Nair,
S/o K.Parasuraman Nair aged 64 years,
Switch Board Supervisor (Retd),
Karnataka, Kerala & Goa,
Sub Area  Signals, Bangalore,
No.11, Anugraha, Nagaraja Layout,
1st Cross, Kavalbyrasandra, R.T.Nagar,
Bangalore – 560 032. ...Applicant

(By Advocate Shri B.Hari)

Vs.

1. Major K.Vinod,
The Commanding Officer,
Karnataka, Kerala & Goa,
Sub Area Signals Section,
Cubbon Road, Bangalore -560001.

2. Brigadiar C. Mari,
The Officer In charge,
Signals Records,
Post Box No.5,
Jabalpur (MP) – 482001.

3. Shashikant Sharma,
The Secretary,
Ministry of Defence, South Block,
Army Head Quarters,
DHQ PO, New Delhi – 110 011. ...Respondents

(By Additional Central Government Standing Counsel Shri V.N.Holla)


O R D E R (ORAL)

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

The learned Counsel for alleged contemners submits that as per the directions of the Tribunal the speaking order has been issued on 24-3-2011  which is filed at Annexure R3 and delay is regretted.  The cost awarded is
- 2 -

also been paid as seen from Annexure R1.  Hence contempt petition is closed.  Notices issued are discharged.


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

sd.


CP No 37/2010


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH  :  BANGALORE

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 37/2010
IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.01/2010

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

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


Sri Rajeev Shrivastava,
S/o Late O.P.Shrivastava,
Aged about 47 years,
Defence Estates Officer,
Indian Defence Estates Service,
Karnataka & Goa Circle, T-56,
Assaye Line, K.Kamraj Road,
BANGALORE – 560 042. ...Petitioner

(By Advocate Shri N.G.Phadke)

Vs.

Shri Balsharn Singh,
Director General, Defence Estates,
Ministry of Defence, Government of India,
Raksha Sampada Bhawan,
Ullanbatar Marg, Delhi Cantt.,
NEW DELHI -110 010. ...Respondents

(By Additional Central Government Standing Counsel Shri V.N.Holla)


O R  D E R (ORAL)

HON'BLE SMT.LEENA MEHENDALE MEMBER(A)

The learned Counsel for the petitioner makes oral submission that he is withdrawing the CP.  Shri M.V.Rao, learned Counsel for respondents has no objection.  CP is closed accordingly.  Notices issued are discharged.


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

CP No 28/2010


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.28/2010
IN
TA NO.295/2009

WEDNESDAY, DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2011


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


Sri. S.Balaji, 47 years,
Son of V.Sundaresan,
Telecom Technical Assistant,
Telephone Exchange Gundlupet,
Under DE Nanjangud,
Mysore Telecom District,
(Before issuance of order of removal)
with present postal address as:
C/o Naveen Kumar,
Chinnu Designer House,
672 'M' Block, Nrupathunga Road,
Kuvempunagar,
Mysore: 570 023. ...Petitioner
(By Advocate Shri P.A.Kulkarni)

Vs.

1. Sri R.Chandrashekar,
Director General,
Department of Telecommunications,
No.2, Sanchar Bhavan,
Ashoka Road, New Delhi – 110 001.

2. Sri Kuldeep Goyal,
Chairman and Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),
No.102-B, Statesman House,
148, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi – 110 001.

3. Sri P.Raghavan,
Chief General Manager Telecom,
Karnataka Circle,
No.1, Swamy Vivekananda Road,
Halasoor, Bangalore – 5600 008.

4. Sri G.Gourisankar,
General Manager Telecom,
Mysore Telecom District,
Jayalaxmipuram,
Mysore: 570 012. ...Respondents


(By Additional Central Government Standing Counsel Shri V.N.Holla)
- 2 -


O R D E R (ORAL)

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

Both the Counsel are present.  The learned Counsel for the contemner submits that the department has already taken appropriate action in compliance with  the order of this Tribunal in TA No.295/2009.  Accordingly, he requests for disposing of CP No.28/2010.  A memo dated 30.3.2011 has been filed to that effect giving  a copy of the order passed by the BSNL No.STAFF/MISC/TTA-MISC/25 dated 18.3.2011  and order from Ministry of Communications & IT No.11-9/2010-TFS dated 11.3.2011.  The learned Counsel for original applicant has no objection to dispose of this Contempt Petition with permission to challenge these two above orders if his relief is not fully granted.  Accordingly, Contempt Petition is discharged.


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

sd.

CP No 15/2010 on 14-09-2011


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH  :  BANGALORE

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.15/2010
IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.01/2010

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

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


Sri Rajeev Shrivastava,
S/o Late O.P.Shrivastava,
Aged about 47 years,
Defence Estates Officer,
Indian Defence Estates Service,
Karnataka & Goa Circle, T-56,
Assaye Line, K.Kamraj Road,
BANGALORE – 560 042. ...Petitioner

(By Advocate Shri N.G.Phadke)

Vs.

1. Shri A.Bhaskar Reddy,
O/o DEO, Karnataka & Goa,
Circle, T-56, Assaye lines,
K.Kamraj Road,
BANGALORE – 560 042.

2. Shri Balsharn Singh,
Director General, Defence Estates,
Ministry of Defence, Government of India,
Raksha Sampada Bhawan,
Ullanbatar Marg, Delhi Cantt.,
NEW DELHI -110 010. ...Respondents

(By Additional Central Government Standing Counsel Shri V.N.Holla)


O R  D E R (ORAL)

HON'BLE SMT.LEENA MEHENDALE MEMBER(A)

The learned Counsel for the petitioner makes oral submission that he is withdrawing the CP.  Shri M.V.Rao, learned Counsel for respondents has no objection.  CP is closed accordingly.  Notices issued are discharged.


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

******** CP No 44/2010 in OA 536/1996 on 17-08-2011


********  Rly denying right to a widow of the dues
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.44/2010
IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.536/1996

WEDNESDAY, DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011


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


Smt.Lakshmamma
W/o Rudrappa Venkatappa,
Aged about 59 years,
R/At C/o K.Dharmapalan,
Sheshadripuram, IV Cross,
Shimoga – 577 201. ...Petitioner

(By Advocate Shri R.Shashidar)

Vs.

1. Shri Deepak Krishana,
General Manager,
Park Town, Southern Railways,
Madras – 600 003.

2. Shri D.B.Varma,
Divisional Manager,
South Western Railway,
Mysore.

3. Shri D.Narasimhan,
Divisional Personnel Officer,
South Western Railways,
Mysore.

4. Shri K.L.Girish,
Permanent Way Inspector,
South Western Railway,
Shimoga. ...Respondents

(By Railway Standing Counsel Shri N.Amaresh)

This Contempt Petition was filed on 27.9.2010 and came up for hearing today.  In view of the fact that  already nearly 10 months have past,  both the learned Counsel as well as  the Bench was anxious for an early hearing.  Accordingly, both the Counsels made their submissions, from which, we note that:-

1. This CP is filed on 29.9.2010 as the respondents  have not complied with the directions of this Tribunal in OA No.536/1996 in which the judgement came to be passed on 10.7.1997 directing as below - “To this, the respondents' counsel states that he undertakes to intimate the counsel for the applicant within a period of one month, the amount involved, so that the applicant can take steps to procure the legal heirship certificate from the competent court of law.  If such legal heirship certificate is produced to the respondents, the respondents shall dispose of the claim made by the applicant within a period of 2 months thereafter” (Annexure C1).

2. We find from the record that the alleged contemner have not submitted any document to show us that any such communication was made by them contemner to the original applicant at any time during the period 1997 – 2011, for conveying the amount involved.  Furthermore it is seen from the record that subsequently in the year 1998 the applicant, who is the wife of the deceased employee  filed a claim before the competent court  for the succession certificate and the learned court was pleased to grant the succession certificate to the extent of Rs.3,35,000/- payable by the respondent department.  The decision of the competent court as at Annexure C-2, was obtained on 26.6.2009 and was served upon the present contemner by way of legal notice on 13.2.2010, Annexure C-3.  A second legal notice was also served on 29.6.2010.

3. It is to be noted that the alleged contemners-1 and 2 are high ranking officials of South Western Railway, namely GM and DRM, who have all resources and necessary authority at their command for complying with the direction of the Tribunal.  Pursuant to the direction of this Bench to the alleged contemners we are under obligation to communicate to the applicant the amount due to be paid for the services of the deceased employees within one month, further they have  received the legal heirship certificate in February, 2010 and were under obligation to pay the claim amount within a period of 2 months thereafter.  When nothing happened, the original applicant has filed this contempt petition in the month of September, 2010.  Accordingly notice was served on the alleged contemners to which the objections have come to be filed on 1.2.2011 on behalf of all four alleged contemners.  Thereafter, an affidavit has been filed on 5.8.2011 to say that the contemners have tried to settle the claim of the applicant to the tune of Rs.1,805/- by way of a cheque which is dated 2.8.2011.   This is against the claim of Rs.3,35,000/- for which the decree is passed by the competent court for succession certificate.   We also find that even the cheque proposing to give pittance has not yet delivered.

4. Through out the filing of the objections to the contempt notice and  filing the affidavit, we only notice a very callous approach of the alleged contemners.  There is not a single word of remorse or apology for the delay.  When the succession court has passed an order for the claim of Rs.3,35,000/-, the alleged contemners in their objection statement at para-5 questioned the following –
“It is not known as to how the petitioner has filed the P&SC before the Hon'ble Civil Judge, Bhadravathi claiming  the  amount of Rs.3,35,000/-, ______ the respondents have never communicated to the petitioner the total amount due in respect of the  settlement benefits of late Rudrappa Venkatappa”.

5. It is thus the own admission of the alleged contemners that they have not communicated anything to the applicant regarding the claim and thus violated the directions given in para-2 of the order of this Tribunal dated 10.7.1997.  The statement of objections filed before us is completely without any remorse.  The non-communication by the contemners to the applicant must also have resulted  in lot of running around  done by  the applicant to collect papers relevant to the claim.  The matter took long time  before the succession  court  before whom the alleged contemners have not cared to appear, thus putting the applicant to a great amount of hardship.  It is with impunity that the statement is made at para-5 that the Railway authorities never communicated the total amount due in respect of the claims.

6. It is also seen that the original respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 4 were highly placed officials of  South Western Railways under which the present alleged contemners are employees and holding those posts.  They were made a party before the Badravathi court who has decided the succession certificate case and that court had taken out notice and yet the original respondents chose to remain absent,  through out the period of 14 years. They have never intimated to the applicant that according to their available records the claims comes to only Rs.1,805/-.  This  assessment seems to have dawned upon them only as late as on 2.8.2011.  All this goes to show only the callousness of the respondent department and their officers in dealing with the claims of their employees.

7. During the hearing  the learned Counsel insisted that the direction of the court which reads as “the respondents shall dispose of the  claims made by the applicant within a period of 2 months    thereafter”  must be understood as a direction merely to consider the claim of the applicant and the respondents are free to come to their own conclusion regarding the amount due to the applicant.  We make it clear that this submission is not acceptable in view of clear directions of the Tribunal.  The word “dispose of” must be understood as “pay” and not as “consider”. Looking at  the evidence, in our opinion, considering the aspect that the applicants have been driven from pillar to post, at least now the Respondents could have granted relief to the applicants in line and tune with the order of the Tribunal dated 10.12.2010 in OA No.478/2008 without giving rise to this CP. Hence we have no hesitation to levy a cost of Rs.50,000/- on Respondent-1 who is the highest responsible officer and Res.30,000/- on the Respondent-2 and Rs.15,000/- on Respondent-3 to be paid to the original applicant.  They are also directed to make the payment of Rs.3,35,000/- which has been declared in the succession certificate to the applicant within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  

8.     On noting  these above mentioned facts  the Bench has come to a conclusion that this is a fit case for proceeding with the contempt against the 4 respondents by names. Accordingly, under Rules 13(b)(i) we frame the contempt charge as attached herewith:

9. We also have no hesitation to conclude that all the four respondents have committed a contemt of court and therefore charge them with the contempt  as per attached notice under Section.... of the Act.  They shall personally appear before this Tribunal on 15.11.2011.
With the above directions, the CP is allowed.

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

sd.

CP No 31/2010 in OA 153/2008 on 16-03-2011


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.31/2010
IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.153/2008


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

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

1. K.Mallikarjuna,
S/o L.Doddabasavanagowda,
Aged about: 47 years,
Working as Head Commercial Clerk,
B.I.O.P. Siding,
Served by Bellary,
South Western Railway,
Hubli.

2. B.V.Ranganath,
S/o K.Varadaraj,
Aged about 48 years,
Working as Head Commercial Clerk,
Toranagal Railway Station,
South Western Railway,
Turanagal, Bellary. ...Petitioners

(By Advocate Shri M.R.Achar)

Vs.

1. Kuldeep Cheturvedi,
General Manager,
South Western Railway,
Hubli Zone,
Hubli.

2. Mohan A.Menon,
The Chief Personal Officer,
South Western Railway,
Hubli Zone,  Hubli.

3. Timothy T.Gonmei,
The Senior Divisional Personal Officer,
South Western Railway,
Hubli Division, Hubli. ...Respondents

(By Railway Standing Counsel Shri N.Amaresh)

O R D E R  (ORAL)

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

The learned Counsel for contemner submits that the matter has been
- 2 -

referred to High Court vide W.P.No.64862/2010 and stay has been granted to the order passed by this Tribunal.  Under these circumstances, the learned Counsel for original applicant also agrees that the CP cannot be continued.  Thus CP is disposed of.


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



sd.

CP No. 04/2011 on 06-06-2011


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.04/2011
IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.139/2009

MONDAY, DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011


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

H.R.Nagamani,
W/o S.R.Dwarakanath,
Aged about 51 years,
retired Sub-Divisional Engineer(BSNL),
residing at No.47, 2nd Main, 8th Cross,
C.T.Bed area, Banasankari 3rd Stage,
Bangalore – 560 085. ...Petitioner

(By Advocate Shri M.S.Bhagwat)

Vs.

1. Sri P.Raghavan,
Chief General Manager,
Telecom,
Karnataka Circle & Disciplinary Authority,
Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Karnataka Circle, Halasuru,
Bangalore – 560 008.

2. Sri Gopal Das,
Chairman Cum Managing Director,
Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
4th Floor, 'V' Wing,
Statesmen House,
B-148, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi 110 001. ...Respondents

(By Additional Central Government Standing Counsel Shri V.N.Holla)


O R D E R (ORAL)

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

Both the Counsel are present.  The learned Counsel for respondents submits that the respondents have approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka against the order of this Tribunal and stay has been granted and also the matter has been admitted by the Hon'ble High Court.  Accordingly, both the learned Counsel submit that the Contempt Petition may be disposed of with
- 2 -

liberty to the applicant to file another Contempt Petition if and when necessary.  Accordingly the case is disposed of.  The Respondents-1&2 are discharged.


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


sd.

OA No 378 OF 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)


sd.