Karnataka High Court
The Union Of India vs Smt Rajeshwari W/O Sri Pragasam on 7 January, 2011
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal, K.Govindarajulu
ts IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALC DATED THIS THE OFT! DAY OF JA BASS e201 _ THE HONEALE MR. JUSTIC i Pad ar Wf 305 NAL THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTIC E K _ GOVIN DARAJULU WPNOSIAIT OF JOLOIS-CAT BETWEEN: 1The Unian, af adie, ; represented by f retary, Ministry of Lalwar and Exaplovenerst, She amshelthi Bhavan, New Delhi-iig 003, . . 'Sey vloweaaat, Shramahakthi "'Bhevati} Kew Toei ~110 001. . 8. The TXrector of Treating WT) . DOE & Tibunal, Ministry of Labour and Bes ployment, Sheemehiektin, Enewen, Near Delhi- 110 O04. 4.The Regional Dawectar Regional Dureoter af Treimng CVTe Caan pus, Souther Region, Guiry, CRE RAL-OO0 Gag. orale Oemite Dorecter, eo auptoation belore the Central Acm inistrative Trisunel for short 'the Tribunal', in O.A.No.260/2 2607 Be the relief of grant of Aseured Carrier Progress sion S ohame, for. ehort (ACE, or completion of ig years, of servic : in the. ca ae a year ZOO0. The eaid applies! tie te wea aiay po sed, by Che: Tribunal on BF BOTT write. ce direction "to the petitioners te consider the aio! Une. reapencdernt ~ AE baa on og Sth ven ate wht am Sa cae bok "of the oben rvat jome miece in the sac £5 ry Boyett » dees eyes Ede oe Scheme bothe be order. : the aal fret appooahorn O.AN! 250) O08, the Tribunal hes taken into ecomunt the st atemerts made in the additional reply Gled by the p ations an .Suiiee it to mete thet the seid emplimation e was dis ene sed-of directing the petitionera to consider the claten of tee "respondent tfor grant of ACP. The aaul order
. 'wes n mete complied, Hemes, arelher application wae fied in Application No 260/ 2007. Pursuant to the order
-pegsed by the Tribunal i the firat instence, an encorgement @ igsuce at Armewure- AS winch was the 7 eubject matter before the Tribunal im ae much as the petitioners were of the wiew that for conferment of ACP, & the reapormient cleea not have fie requisite quad fication, The eaid endorsement was the sabiect "matter 2 subsequent application that is Applice atiow Ne. 266 1 2007». The Triburual heaving regard to the. on er pasted By a om an eerfer occasion wae. of the: view 'that if the appliost hes fulfilled. the dition regaiidin ge tne completion of 1 é years o r | acrvice and necessary henen nuark jor prowiotion we ea required te te he grantes, ACP on the date offs competion , ray year 'of service in the grade ar mechanic oust LE. a "that if 'the date happens to he prior to Ls a4. F003: Th 8, cirected the peutionera to conmder the clams of r Ss penporvient. As agent the waid ore ecder, , the petiiemers were before this Court on WRN ay 26385) 2008, Before thie Court, the petitioners afer arguing the oomatter for some the sorage rat
- * permission to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to Ne en applcetion for review, The petitiomere fled a "review application before the Tribunal The Tribunal heaving regard to the orler pasee by it om an earlier oogasion was of the wew that the question of entertamung the review applicaton does mot arge. Flenoe, reelected the same. Hence, the | are batore thie Court for the second time questioning the original o 2 We heve beerd Mr nk = saresha | aopeerime fer the cetitlear yet. ns, omen | ee Me CE cane Lop appesTInNg tor the pe titioviers 8 hell @e Wr. sine Mourthuja, learned Counsel ape ee earring for the regporngent, © we Apparently Prien te the amendment, there Wes mo qua fica con for: be purposes of conferment of ACP mut nowever puresuert to toe armerkimernt of the moles or pn ier the comberment ef ACP, certem mre "quatitios x ations are required. Prior te tae ory quailifieatier: for conferment of ACP was completion af 12 years, Indeed, the Tribanel hes taken inte consideration ee Rag i aspect of the matter and was of the view that the "heotssary bench mark for promotion was 12 vears prior e to the amendmertt Feves, im the chron tence a crested the petitioners t ocomakier the claie: for comtermernt of ACF, We are of the view that the question ef giteriering with the order of the Tribunal arwe im the circumetances, im as much as the Tribune! ras clireoted the petitionera to consider the claim ef the. reeporkcient with reference to the. applicability. or the amended rules. Indeed, it is within the domain of the petitioners to consider the clairn amc. pass appropriate erder. Corsecuently, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be faulted, The petition atands disposed of. The petitioners abl consider the clain of the reapondent for grant of ACP expeditiously, Sd / sd JUDGE A Sd) Judge