Karnataka High Court
Sri.B.J. Dhananjaya vs The Secretary on 27 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17650-DB
WP No. 6240 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 6240 OF 2023 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.B.J. DHANANJAYA,
S/O B S JAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN INSTITUTE OF WOOD
SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560003.
2. SRI L MANJUNATHA,
S/O SRI T LANKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT C/O CHANDRAMMA FDA,
SIR M V LAYOUT, BENGALURU
Digitally signed
by BELUR WORKING AS TECHNICIAN
RANGADHAMA INSTITUTE OF WOOD SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY,
NANDINI
Location: HIGH 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560003.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAJAKUMAR M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST,
GOVT OF INDIA, PARIYAVARNA BHAVAN,
CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 10003.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17650-DB
WP No. 6240 of 2023
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,
INDIAN COUNCIL OF FOREST RESEARCH AND
EDUCATION, P O NEW FOREST, DEHRADUN-248006.
3. THE SECRETARY,
INDIAN COUNCIL OF FOREST RESEARCH AND
EDUCATION, P O NEW FOREST, DEHRADUN-248006.
4. THE DIRECTOR,
INSTITUTE OF WOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560018.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H SHANTHI BHUSHAN DSGI, FOR
MS.ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) CALL FOR
THE RECORD IN ORDER PASSED IN OA NO.20/2023 DATED
10/01/2023 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-A AND TO SET-ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE NO.63-19/2020-ICFRE (TSR)
24/02/20222 AT ANNEXURE-A14 IN OA, ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENTS AND FURTHER DECLARE THAT NEW TECHNICAL
SERVICE RULES-2013 AT ANNEXURE-A6 IN OA WITH
RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 18.12.2013 VIDE
NOTIFICATION NO.63-19/2016-ICFRE DATED 01/03/2017 AT
ANNEXURE-A5 IN OA, ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO PETITIONERS
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioners as well as the learned Deputy Solicitor General -3- NC: 2024:KHC:17650-DB WP No. 6240 of 2023 appearing for the respondents as instructed by the said counsel.
2. The question raised in this writ petition is with regard to the correctness of an order of the CAT, Bangalore Bench rejecting O.A. filed by the petitioners on the ground that the same is belated.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are low paid employees who had been appointed as Technical Assistants in the office of the 4th respondent. It is stated that by a notification dated 01.03.2017, new rules were notified by which a post of Technician was created. It is submitted that though the post of Technical Assistant and Senior Technical Assistant were existing even in the new rules, the appellants who have holding the post of Technical Assistant under the old rules were downgraded and demoted to the post of Technician which is a much lower post which was not in existence in the old rules. It is contended that the petitioners possessed the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:17650-DB WP No. 6240 of 2023 qualification for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant which was graduation. It is submitted that they ought to have been considered for promotion from the post of Technical Assistant to Senior Technical Assistant instead of which they were demoted to the post of Technician.
4. The learned counsel contends that the application had been filed challenging Annexure-A14 order dated 24.02.2022 and therefore, contention that the application was belated was factually incorrect. It is submitted that since there was substantial injustice meted out to the petitioners who are low paid employees and who are qualified for the post of Technical Assistant, the order of the CAT rejecting the application on the ground of delay and laches was vitiated by hyper technicality and the writ petition is therefore liable to be allowed and the matter is liable to be remanded to the CAT for fresh consideration.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:17650-DB WP No. 6240 of 2023
5. The learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for respondents submits that Annexure-A14 was an order which rejected Annexure-A13 further representation preferred by the writ petitioners on the ground that the matter had already been considered and a reply had been furnished by a letter dated 22.09.2017 to the applicant. It is stated that absolutely no new reasons had been stated in the order dated 24.02.2022 and that the application had been filed without seeking condonation of delay in filing the same. It is submitted that the endorsements dated 04.07.2017 and 22.09.2017 had addressed the issue and given speaking replies to the petitioners. An earlier application filed challenging those replies had been considered by the CAT and had already been rejected on account of delay. It is therefore contended that there is absolutely no justification in seeking a further consideration of the matter.
6. Learned Deputy Solicitor General would also rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in D.C.S. -6- NC: 2024:KHC:17650-DB WP No. 6240 of 2023 Negi vs. Union of India and Others, (2018) 16 SCC 721 wherein, it is held that Section 21(1) and 21(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short 'Act of 1985') makes it clear that a Tribunal cannot admit an application unless the same is made within the time specified in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21(1) or Section 21(2) or an order is passed in terms of sub-section (3) for entertaining the application after the prescribed period. A judgment of co-equal Bench of this Court in W.P. No.9142/2021 is also relied on. It is further submitted that apart from the fact that the application was belated and was not filed with any application for condonation of delay, it is stated that the issue stands squarely covered against the petitioners since the petitioners had earlier filed O.A. No.400/2022 challenging the orders dated 04.07.2017 and 22.09.2017 and had suffered an order dismissing M.A. No. 335/2022 filed for condonation of delay of 1535 days in filing the application and consequently disposal of application as well. It is submitted that after the application filed challenging -7- NC: 2024:KHC:17650-DB WP No. 6240 of 2023 speaking orders had been dismissed, there would be absolutely no logic in remanding the matter to the Tribunal for consideration on merits.
7. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that Section 21 of the Act of 1985 is quite clear on the question of the time within which an O.A. has to be filed. In the instant case, orders has been passed on 04.07.2017 and 22.09.2017 rejecting the request made by the applicants. The challenge against those orders had been upheld by the Tribunal by its order in M.A. 335/2022 and application No.400/2022. It appears that Annexure- A13 had been filed by the petitioners on 19.02.2021. However, by Annexure-A14 dated 24.02.2022, the said application had been rejected stating that the reply had been furnished to the applicant on 22.09.2017 and since no new facts are raised in the representation, the applicant needs to be informed only of the decision dated 22.09.2017. In view of the fact that O.A. filed against the orders dated 04.07.2017 and 22.09.2017 stands dismissed -8- NC: 2024:KHC:17650-DB WP No. 6240 of 2023 on the ground of delay and since the present O.A. was filed without any application for condonation of delay and since the order impugned had only reiterated that the matters stands covered by the speaking order dated 22.09.2017, we are of the opinion that there will be no justification in allowing this writ petition and directing reconsideration of a matter which already stands concluded by earlier orders of the Tribunal the writ petition fails.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38