Karnataka High Court
K. Nagaraja vs The Secretary on 21 January, 2014
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.1638/2014 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
K. Nagaraja,
S/o. Y. Krishnappa,
Aged about 45 years,
No.251, 12th 'B' Cross,
West of Chord Road, II Stage,
Mahalakshmipuram,
Bangalore - 560 086. ...PETITIONER
(By Sri D.R. Ravishankar, Adv.)
AND:
1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Government of India,
'A' Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Director (Films),
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Government of India,
'A' Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
3. Central Board of Film Certification,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
2
4th Floor, 'D' Wing,
Kendriya Sadan, Koramangala,
Bangalore,
Represented by its Chairperson.
4. The Ministry of Personal and Public
Grievances and Pensions,
Department of Personal and Training,
Government of India,
II Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001,
Represented by its Secretary.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Kalyan Basavaraj, ASG)
This petition is filed under Articles 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash Annexure-J the
orders of the 2nd respondent dated 03.01.2014.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar and Sri Kalyan Basavaraj, learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the writ petition record.
2. The petitioner, an Officer in Central Secretariat Service, Government of India, was appointed as Regional Officer, Central Board of Film Certification, Bangalore, on deputation, by an order dated 29.06.2009, vide Annexure- 3 A. A consequential Office Order dated 01.07.2009 vide Annexure-B was issued by the petitioner's parent Department. Since the period of deputation was about to expire on 08.07.2013, petitioner submitted his willingness on 08.01.2013 and sought extension of his deputation for one more year. On 01.08.2013, a O.M. was issued by the petitioner's parent Department conveying no objection for extending the deputation tenure of the petitioner for one more year beyond 07.07.2013 or till the new incumbent takes over, whichever is earlier. On 08.08.2013, a O.M. vide Annexure-F was issued with regard to the Cadre Controlling Authority having no objection for extension of the deputation period of the petitioner for further period of one year. The petitioner sought extension of deputation as per representation dated 26.09.2013 till March 2014. An order dated 03.01.2014, as at Annexure-J, having been issued, repatriating the petitioner to his parent Department by simultaneously according approval to the extension of the deputation tenure of the petitioner beyond 4 08.07.2013 upto 03.01.2014 only, assailing Annexure-J, this writ petition has been filed.
3. The primary question for consideration is, whether the writ petition is maintainable?
4. Petitioner is a civil servant. Petitioner was on deputation as Regional Officer, CBFC, Bangalore, with effect from 08.07.2009. He having completed the deputation period of four years, extension has been allowed only upto 03.01.2014.
5. The petitioner's grievance can be only against his Cadre Controlling Authority. Merely because 3rd respondent is not a notified body under S.14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, the Act), petitioner cannot approach this Court, directly for relief. The grievance of the petitioner falls within the definition under S.3(q) of the Act. Hence, the petitioner should approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for relief, if any, as against the impugned order.
5
In the result, upholding the preliminary objection raised by Sri Kalyan Basavaraj with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition, based on the decision of the Apex Court in L. CHANDRA KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1977 SC 1125, without going to the merit of the case of the petitioner as against the impugned order, the writ petition is rejected by reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal.
All the contentions of both sides are kept open for consideration and decision by the Tribunal.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE sac*