Karnataka High Court
The Union Of India vs Sri R N Desai S/O Nagesh Rao Desai on 17 July, 2013
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, B.S.Indrakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.S. INDRAKALA
WRIT PETITION NO.18512/2012 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
1. The Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block,
New Delhi-110 011.
2. The Engineer-in-Chief,
Army Headquarters,
Kashmir House,
New Delhi-110 011.
3. The Chief Engineer,
Southern Command,
Pune-411 001.
4. The Chief Engineer (IAF)
# 2, D C area, M.E.S.Road,
Yeshwanthapur, Bangalore-560 022.
5. Garrison Engineer (IAF), Bidar. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri. M. Ravinson, Standing Counsel)
2
AND:
Sri. R.N. Desai,
S/o Nagesh Rao Desai,
Retd Junior Engineer, (E/M)
Garrison Engineer, (IAF) Bidar,
Now residing at 7th Cross, 5th main,
Chamrajpet, Bangalore-560 018. ...RESPONDENT
(By Ranganatha S. Jois Associates, Advocate for C/R)
...
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to issue writ of
certiorari by setting aside the order dated 23.11.2011,
passed by Central Administrative Tribunal in Original
Application No.329/2010 by declaring the same as
apposed to law as per Annexure- B and pass such other
relief/s as the situation demands by moulding the prayer
with the cost in the interest of justice and equity.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing
this day, Shylendra Kumar. J., made the following:
ORDER
This writ petition by the Union of India is against the order dated 23rd November, 2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in Original Application No. 329/2010 where under the Tribunal had allowed the application of the respondent, a retired Junior Engineer in the services of the Military Engineering Services, E/M Garrison Engineer (IAF), Bidar and in whose application before the Tribunal, he had 3 sought for issue of directions to the employer - Union of India to extend the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short 'ACP' Scheme) which had been put in place by the Central Government in respect of the Central Government Civilian Employees by a notification bearing No. 35034/1/97-Estt(D) dated 9th August, 1999 (Annexure-D to the writ petition).
2. The Tribunal under the impugned order had allowed the application of the respondent and by following its earlier order passed in O.A.No.327/2008 directed the employer to grant 2nd ACP to the applicant from the date he was otherwise due and the question of not passing his examination i.e., the Military Engineer Service (for short 'MES') Departmental Examination will not come in the way of such benefit of ACP Scheme being extended to the applicant.
3. It is aggrieved by this order, the present writ petition by the Union of India. It was contended by Sri M. Ravinson, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner/Union of India that the respondent had not 4 qualified himself for seeking the benefit of ACP Scheme as he had not passed the MES Departmental Examination, which is a must for normal promotions to the next higher post from the post of Junior Engineer and therefore, he could not have sought for extension of benefit under the Scheme and the Tribunal is in error in granting such a benefit. Submission is that it is contrary to the scheme. Notice had been issued to the respondent. The respondent is represented by a Counsel Sri Basavaraj Patel. The learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that in identical circumstances in a writ petition filed by the Union of India questioning similar order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Sri N. Prabhuswamy, who is also a retired Junior Engineer, this Court in terms of the order dated 24th June, 2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 452/2012 had disposed of the writ petition of the Union of India with the observation that the benefit even if extended under the ACP Scheme to the respondent in that petition, it is only for the purpose of fixing of the pension and not for claiming any arrears of salary etc as the respondent had retired.
5
4. We notice in the present case also the respondent had already retired. However, Mr. Ravinson submits that a direction should not have been issued by the Tribunal in contravention of para-6 of the Scheme and therefore, the order of the Tribunal had come to be modified in the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 452/2012 by modifying the order of the Tribunal and a direction was issued to the respondents to extend the benefit, if any, to the respondent, if found to be eligible only for the purpose of fixation of pay scale and for claiming pensionary benefits etc.
5. Sri Basavaraj Patel, learned Counsel for the respondent has no objection for passing order on like terms.
6. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of modifying the order of the Tribunal and directing the petitioner to extend the benefit of 2nd ACP Scheme, if the respondent is found otherwise eligible under the Scheme and on having completed the requisite number of years of service and for the purpose of fixing his pension 6 and not for the purpose of drawing of any arrears of salary etc. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Judge Sd/-
Judge Nsu/-