Tuesday, January 8, 2013






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)


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,
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)



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.

No comments:

Post a Comment