Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs A.A. Jayanthan on 14 October, 2010
Bench: C.N.Ramachandran Nair, K.Surendra Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8037 of 2008(S)
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
... Petitioner
2. CHAIRMAN
3. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE &
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE &
5. THE COMMISSIONER (LOGISTICS)
Vs
1. A.A. JAYANTHAN, SKIPPER MATE (RETD.)
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR
For Respondent :SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :14/10/2010
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
....................................................................
W.P.(C) No.8037 of 2008
....................................................................
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Heard Sri.John Varghese, Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants and Adv. Sri.Gopalakrishnan Nair appearing for the respondent. After hearing both sides and after going through the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, we do not find any merit in the appeal because the respondent prior to his appointment in the Marine Wing of the Customs and Excise Department had served the Indian Navy for over nine years. Under the Rules for promotion to the post of Skipper, the educational qualification insisted by the appellants is a Certificate from the Mercantile Marine Department about the candidate's service as a Skipper or Joint Skipper in a Fishing Vessel. Obviously an Ex-serviceman taken from Navy could not be asked to produce experience certificate for work in a Fishing Vessel. The respondent's eligibility for service in a vessel with the appellant's Marine Department is based on his experience as a Navy personnel for 2 nine years. Therefore, obviously the certificate demanded under the Rules cannot be produced by the respondent. The finding of the CAT is that ever since joining the appellants'-department the respondent was engaged in vessel as a Senior Deck Hand, later as Skipper mate and on retirement of the Skipper, he was acting as Skipper for 18 years. Consequently we do not find any justification for promoting persons junior to him by denying promotion to the respondent as a Skipper. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly granted relief to the respondent. We do not find any merit in the W.P.(C). However, since the respondent is retired, he can be given only notional Grade promotion as Skipper on the date on which his juniors were promoted and all consequential benefits should be given to him including retirement benefits. The appellants are given three months' time from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment to pay the arrears to the respondent and to start paying regular pension accordingly.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms