Karnataka High Court
O Shivadasan vs The General Maanger Wheel And Axle Plant on 2 November, 2010
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, B.V.Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2% DAY OF NOVEMBER, 203.5 ~.
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE.v:G~..sAB._NAi}i1T.A
AND
THE HONBLE MRs.JUsiN(jE.
WRIT PETITION No. ZBZSSAOF' 2.004. '{s«--cA1), 7
BETVVEEN
.........................._.___.............
SR1 0. SHIVADASAN_
s/0 SR1. AYYAPPITM' _ 1
AGED ABOUT Y:EA_Rs,; _
WORKING AS cLE_R'K;=-- . "
GENERAL%1sT'oR'Es_;DE;>AR:;*§;1ENT,
WHEEL 'AND'A}{LE '-
(MINISTRY OF RA.zLwAYs1_ _ .
BANC3ALORE'~:_5S0 054.
(BY Ms. ADV. ,1
(1)1 "THE GENERAL MANAGER,
AND AXLE PLANT,
(MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS]
T T PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT.
' BANGALORE -- 64.
WHEEL AND AXLE PLANT,
[MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS]
...PETITIONER
' A "THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER,
YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE -- 64.
.. .RESPONDENTS
{BY SR1 N.S. SANJAY GOWDA, ADV.,] THIS WR IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 22'?_f"f)F_ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RRAYINC TO QUASH THE-QjP.DiiTI.R "
DATED 08.06.2004 MADE AT ANNEXA. PASSED BY"*iii?i~1E'~------.0 A- HON'BLE CAT AT BANGALORE AND TO ALLOWf1'H.E--SAME§ 0 BEFORE THE HONBLE TR1BUNAL_.,..O.RANT'1NG" "
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS. ' THIS WP COMING ON ,EOR v4i'JI+3:Pi_RINGp.»'Df1"EIIS" SABHAEIIT J.. MADE THE FOLLQ'V5[lNG2?'v- _ This appeal is tipl--ecl(_ fby applicant in O.A.N0. 903 / 2003 _ on the "tile-- V the _ 2 Administrative Tribunafi H beingw aggrieved by the Order dated 8-8-2004' whVere_in»lthelA'17ri.bunal has declined the prayer sought _fOr inV_'t11eV'v--.app1ication to quash the impugned "VV"--C0miT§:t1nicati0ns éatee"9--5--2003 and 28-8-2003 with a 't.O'resp:O'ndents to treat his service from 4~4~«l975 to dateas period Of service for all purposes including 'grant of pension, commutation value of pension, leave salary A Other consequential benefits.
3
2. It is the case of the applicant that he was appointed as 8. casual labourer -- Khalasi on 4-4-1975. His services were terminated on 3142-1984 for medical ur1fitnes'_sZ* applicant challenged the said order before the ' Bench of the Central Administrative in O.A.No.290/1988. The said applicat'i.on:-yvas e1:o§x~ea Tribunal by order dated 1'6.--_'2;--..l990'~- §{id_ ior reinstatement of the applicant_____int.o '=seWice~._3_nd Jifurther directed the respondentslfxo pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.10,00()/- other benefits.
It is the further of "that he had filed O.A.No . t_h'eC.(';entralwéidministrative Tribunal, Banga1orle'Bench~ called the Tribunal) seeking revision of se'n1'orityV'Vand_re\}iew of promotion and the same was of byworder dated 10--2-1993 as per Annexure--
"petition. Thereafter, the applicant was considered "fibril; promotion and subsequently, he was liabsorbedliri vGroup-D cadre. Thereafter he was promoted to A i~?_J'11:Anlor.AClerk on 4-12-1995 and he was further promoted to ___"r'SrV.iClerk on 30-6-2001. The grievance of the petitioner is W 4 that on reinstatement as per the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.290/ 1988 , he is entitled to continuity of service and seniority and continuity of service should..<_be counted from 4--4~1975 and therefore he is entitled' consequential benefits.
3. The application was resisted A.the».resp'onldentsi(_' contending that in view *--.__thelV.order in O.A.No.290/1988, the applicant___h'as beenlhreinlstateid from 12-41-1990 and thereafter absorbed on 7-
11-1990 and thereafter as averred in the applicatiorii: to reckoning of seniority1.._fro--:m'. ' h
4. considering the contentions of V. the 1_ea.rned counsel .ap_pean'ng for the parties, by order dated ":_V8--6-'2Q04_"heE.d"'*»that learned Counsel for the applicant was not claiming the applicants seniority 9 froml.ll4--éc¥l1V97'b and therefore, the said prayer was given up it it " in View of the fact that the applicant was reinstated only .1 on.Vl1'2¥ll4--199O as per the order of the Tribunal and absorbed we 5 on 7-11~«1990, the question of treating the seniority from 4- 4-1975 as continuous service for the purpose of settling--the pension and other benefits would not arise and accordinglt/;'.._' rejected the application.
5. Being aggrieved by the said' lorcierpof the:Al'llr.ibuI1--al, this Writ petition is filed by the applicant Zbeforellthel
6. We have heard the leained, lfor the petitioner and respondents. l
7. The learned counsel vAAtorl'_the petitioner submitted that sincefthe §app11e.ant.Aixr$_g.. reinstated as per the order passed' O.A.No.290/1988, he is entitled to th_ellcVon'tinluiltyVo'f. service from 4-4-1975 for the purposellof senioiitjf and for all consequential benefits. In statlenient, the respondents have admitted that sleniofitly"has,l_not~l5een fixed by taking into account the said V dd _ date li".--.e., Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the application as the order passed by the Tribunal V_O'.Aeil\lo.29O/ 1988 has become final. \.e,,/s 6
8. The iearned counsel for the respondents argued in support of the order passed by the Tribunal and reiterated the averrnents made in the objection stater1f1.€?_1_itVV"'a:rid submitted that petitioner is not entitled to seniority ' 4-1975 as the con.tention was giver? »iiP"3Iy1tij.,tY1;'6fé:'V"'"is'~--no specific order passed in the ea1=liei--'._ Alapplication. V' O.A.No.290/ £988.
9. The material on 4-.c.;cord.. clearly llshoxir-that the petitioner sought for the"4'beiiefit.Vofi::iyv"the,basis that he joined the service.lon_ said date should be th'¢x.1;iiuvrpos§f,'of' the seniority and for The said prayer was given up during the"*t4argunVie.nts the learned counsel for the petiti,0_£ner ebeforethe Tribunal and it is not stated in the writ p6ti1'1TOIi'lZhEi.t'A.1lQ such submission was made before the :Flffi_e1*efore, the contention of the petitioner that he V V' _ is en"titled_"tovs'en1'ority from 4-4-1975 can never be accepted H H " Vlasithe petitioner himself has given up the said prayer. As the .:earlier5l order passed in O.A.No.290/1988 does not specifically say that he is entitled to continuity of service and W' as the said order has become final, we hold that __writ petition is devoid of merits.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. '