Karnataka High Court
Sri M.N Nagaraj vs The Spices Board on 23 August, 2018
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.11080 OF 2011 (S-PRO)
BETWEEN:
SRI M.N.NAGARAJ
SON OF M.S.NIVANA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANT
OFFICE OF THE SCIENTIST (INCHARGE)
INDIAN CARDAMOM RESEARCH INSTITUTE
REGIONAL RESEARCH STATION
DONIGAL POST
SAKALESHPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: YOGESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPICES BOARD
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
K.C.AVENUE
ST VINCENT CROSS ROAD
P.B.NO.1909
ERNACULAM, COCHIN
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
2
2. THE SECRETARY
THE SPICES BOARD
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE
GOVERNMNET OF INDIA
K.C.AVENUE
ST VINCENT CROSS ROAD
P.B.NO.1909
ERNACULAM
COCHIN
3. THE SCIENTIST (INCHARGE)
INDIAN CARDAMOM RESERACH INSTITUTE
REGIONAL RESEARCH STATION
DONIGAL POST
SAKALESHPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: JOSHUA H.SAMUEL, CARIYAPPA AND
COMPANY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2,
R3 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT/MEMORANDUM DATED
5.10.10 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
BOARD; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE
CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF 10 YEARS TIME
BOUND HIGHER GRADE AND 20 YEARS TIME BOUND 2ND
HIGHER GRADE AND GRANT HIM ALL THE BENEFITS, AS
HE HAS COMPLETED 10 YEARS AND 20 YEARS SERVICE AS
ON 25.10.1999 AND 25.10.09.
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The case of the petitioner is that he is working as a Junior Technical Assistant at the third respondent office. He was initially appointed as a Junior Technical Assistant by the first respondent Board in its order dated 27.09.1989. Thereafter, his probation was declared. In spite of the same, the first respondent terminated his service on 30.09.1995. The same was challenged in Writ Petition (Civil) No.32620 of 2003 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, wherein, the respondent was situated at that point of time. By the order dated 01.09.2005, the petition was disposed off holding that the petitioner be considered for regularization to the next vacancy and other consequential orders. Thereafter, the first respondent on 01.02.2006 offered appointment to the petitioner as Fieldman. By the order dated 07.03.2018, he was posted as a Junior Technical Assistant. Subsequent to the order of the High Court of Kerala, he made several representations to grant him the benefit of grade revision 4 as he had completed 10 and 20 years of service in the respondent Board. By the impugned endorsement, the same was rejected. Hence, the present petition.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that even though he has completed 10 to 20 years of service in the respondent Board, he has been denied to grant the benefit of grade revision. Therefore, the respondent be directed to grant him the said relief.
3. The same is disputed by the respondent's Counsel. He submits on relying on the impugned memorandum, that the work of petitioner being unsatisfactory, he is not entitled for the same and that he has failed to reach the benchmark.
4. On hearing learned Counsels, I do not find any merit in this petition. The impugned endorsement vide Annexure-A would clearly indicate that the service of the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory. The same was reflected in the Annual Confidential Reports for number of 5 years, which were communicated to him twice in 1993 and 1997. His grade had been 'Average' or 'Below Average'. Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against him for unauthorized absence from September 1992 to June 1993 and penalty of CENSURE was also imposed on him. He had failed to reach the benchmark for grading in the Annual Confidential Reports for a number of years. Therefore, he was found ineligible for grade revision.
5. The reasons assigned are substantial. It is not one, but a series of reasons which prevailed upon the respondent to decline the relief. The grant of relief is not automatic. Reasonable amount of efficiency is called for. The work rendered by the petitioner is below average. The remarks have been made in the Annual Confidential Reports. Being unauthorisedly absent, a penalty has also been imposed. For such an employee, declining of grade revision is just and proper. It is based on his conduct. Hence, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the said order.
6
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
Rule discharged.
SD/-
JUDGE *bgn/-