Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Raghavendra Chandrakant Kharvi vs Western Naval Command on 30 September, 2024
1 OA 553/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00553/2024
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE DR.SANJIV KUMAR ...MEMBER(A)
Shri Raghavendra Chandrakanth Kharvi,
S/o Chandrakanth Kharvi,
Aged about 39 years,
R/o Majali, Karwar Taluk,
Uttara Kannada District,
Pin Code: 581345. ...Applicant
(By Advocate, Shri V.P.Kulkarni)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Represented by Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Sena Bhavan, South Block,
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Flag Officer,
Commandant-in-Chief,
Western Naval Command,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Road,
Mumbai-400001.
2 OA 553/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
3. The Commandant Civilian
Personal Officer,
Head Quarters,
Western Naval Command,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Road,
Mumbai-400001.
4. The Flag Officer Commanding,
Head Quarters, Karnataka Naval Area,
Naval Base, Karwar-581308,
Uttara Kannada District.
5. Shri Sudhir H. Mudgekar,
Aged about 40 years,
Station Officer, INS Kadamba,
Naval Base, Karwar-581308,
Uttara Kannada District.
6. Shri Vasant Rama Gouda,
Aged about 44 years,
Station Officer, INS Kadamba,
Naval Base,
Karwar-581308,
Uttara Kannada District. ...Respondents
3 OA 553/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
O R D E R (ORAL)
Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)
The applicant has filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"i) To quash the impugned order of promotion of the 5th & 6th respondents herein as a Station Officer vide Annexure-
A5 dated October, 2023 in
No.CS/4200/FOK/DPC/FIREMAN/PROMOTION passed
by the 4th Respondent.
ii) Direct the Respondents 1 to 4 herein to promote the
applicant herein as the Station Officer from the date of the promotion of the Respondents No.5 & 6 vide Annexure A5 and to grant all the consequential relief to the applicant herein, in the interest of justice and equity.
iii) Grant any other relief or reliefs as deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. The applicant, who was appointed as a Fireman Grade-II on 17.10.2005 was promoted as Fire Engine Driver in the year 2019 4 OA 553/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH and accordingly his name has been included in the seniority list. It is the grievance of the applicant that the Respondents No.5 and 6, working in Fire Fighting Division, INS Kadamba, in Leading Hand Category in Fire Station, INS Kadamba, Karwar have been promoted as Station Officer in October, 2023 contrary to the Indian Navy (Group 'C' and Group 'D') Fire Fighting Staff Recruitment Rules, 1982. The post of Supervisor now called as Station Officer requires to be filled 50% by promotion from the Leading Hand Fire (LHF) (Selection Grade) and 50% from Fire Engine Driver Grade I, failing that by transfer and failing that by direct recruitment. Being aggrieved by the promotion/transfer order in respect of Fire Fighting Staff for the year 2023 (Annexure A5), the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. Learned Counsel Shri V.P.Kulkarni representing the applicant submitted that from the year 2010, the post of the Station Officer have been filled up by promotion from LHF category and Fire Engine Driver category. The Respondents No.5 and 6 herein have been promoted as Supervisor (Station Officer) in the year 5 OA 553/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 2023 in excess of the quota fixed for promotion from LHF category. On the date of promotion of Respondents No.5 and 6, the applicant had necessary eligibility for being promoted to the post of Station Officer under the field of Engine Driver category. Accordingly, seeks for the reliefs claimed.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the material on record.
5. At the outset, the application suffers from delay in challenging the impugned promotion/ transfer order dated October, 2023, which has been duly acted upon. The arguments of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the application is well within time i.e., within a period of one year from the date of passing of impugned order though appears to be attractive, but on deeper consideration, i.e., in case of promotion/transfer, where the right of an employee to promotion vis-à-vis the right accrued to the private respondents acting upon such promotion/transfer order has to be agitated, the grievance has to be raised at the earliest point of time, 6 OA 553/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH not at the convenience of the applicant, the laxity on the part of the applicant is glaring. The applicant has slept over the matter for many months and has raised from slumber now, challenging the impugned order directly in this OA sans approaching the authorities in this regard.
6. On the query made by this Tribunal inasmuch as any representation filed by the applicant, the answer is in the negative. On the other hand learned Counsel submits that there is no point in submitting the representation in the context of the impugned order having been implemented. This submission runs counter to the argument advanced on the maintainability of the application with regard to delay. The OA filed by the applicant belatedly without availing the remedy before the Department is not maintainable.
7. Resultantly, OA stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(DR.SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S.SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.
7 OA 553/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH