Sri. E. Vamanan Nair vs Union Of India on 3 November, 2017

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. E. Vamanan Nair vs Union Of India on 3 November, 2017

Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar

                             -1-
                                       WP No.29613/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

                           PRESENT

             THE HON'BLE MR.H.G.RAMESH
                ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                            AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

        WRIT PETITION NO.29613/2017 (S-CAT)

BETWEEN:

SRI E.VAMANAN NAIR
S/O SRI K.KRISHNAN NAIR
AGED 65 YEARS
RETIRED AS DIRECTOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA
RESIDING AT D.NO.3-35/6
'VYSAKHI', NEKKILAGUDDA
POST:ASHOK NAGAR
MANGALORE-575 006                          ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI S.SUGUMARAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     UNION OF INDIA
       BY SECRETARY
       MINISTRY OF MINES
       SHASTRI BHAVAN
       NEW DELHI-110 001

2.     THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
       GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA
       27, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU ROAD
       KOLKATA-700 016

3.     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (P&A)
       (GEOLOGY STREAM), SECTION 19A
                               -2-
                                               WP No.29613/2017

     GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA
     15 A & B, KYD STREET
     KOLKATA-700 016                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY MS. M.C.NAGASHREE, CGC)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DTD:1.11.2016 IN O.A NO.33/2016 PASSED BY THE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT ANNEXURE-A AND
QUASH THE ORDER DTD:4.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-3 AT
ANNEXURE-A14 IN ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

      THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30.10.2017, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT       OF     ORDERS,      THIS    DAY,
P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-


                           ORDER

1. Petitioner, in this writ petition is calling in question the order dated 1.11.2016, dismissing O.A.No.170/00033/2016, by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this petition, are petitioner was promoted as Director (Geology) with effect from 31.12.2006. He was subsequently promoted as Director (Geology) (Selection Grade) (Non-Functional) in the Pay Band-4 with effect from 1.2.2008. He was retired from service with effect from 31.1.2011.

3. Petitioner sought for benefit of Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) on the premise that he had completed -3- WP No.29613/2017 four years of service in the cadre of 'Director' as on 31.12.2010.

4. Petitioner's application was contested by the respondents by filing reply statement, contending inter alia that petitioner was promoted as Director (Selection Grade) on 1.2.2008 and he was retired from service on 31.1.2011. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for the benefit of NFU.

5. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, has dismissed the application on the ground of delay by recording a finding as under:

"4.In course of hearing, the Learned Counsel for the applicant referred to Annexure-A11 order saying that it will have prospective effect only and hence the applicant cannot be denied benefit of NFU on this basis. The applicant has become eligible for NFU as on 1.1.2011 and hence he ought to have been provided the NFU from that date. When he was asked to clarify as to why he did not represent or agitate the matter well in time before any appropriate forum if he was aggrieved for not granting NFU w.e.f. 1.1.2011 and gave a representation only 30.7.2014 i.e. after more than 3 years and thereafter sought information under RTI after another year on 5.10.2015, he had no satisfactory answer to the same. The Learned Counsel for the respondents emphasised that the OM dt.28.5.2014 has no relevance in the present case. All the offices in the batch to which the applicant belongs were granted NFU w.e.f 1.4.2011 i.e. commencement of the vacancy year. The applicant had retired on superannuation prior to that on 31.1.2011 and hence there is no scope for considering his case for NFU as the effective date commenced after his retirement. Hence there is no merit in the OA."

-4- WP No.29613/2017

6. Even on merits, the fact remains that petitioner was indeed promoted as Director (Selection Grade), on 1.2.2008 and he was retired on 31.1.2011, prior to the relevant date for reckoning the date of vacancy, which is 1.4.2011. Admittedly, as on the date of petitioner attending the age of superannuation, he had not completed four years in the cadre of Director (Selection Grade), to entitle himself for the benefit of NFU. Hence, there is no error in the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

7. Resultantly, this petition must fail and is accordingly dismissed.

8. We make no order as to costs.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE Yn.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court