Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
V Suryachandra Rao vs M/O Defence on 3 September, 2018
os gHEEP
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH : HYDERABAD
Original Application No.360/2012
Date of Order : 03.09.2018
Between :
1. V.Surya Chandra Rao, $/o Veeranna, oe
Aged about 42 years,
R/o 27-4-74/2, Plot No.72,
Sri Krishnadevaraya Nagar,
Old Karanamvanipalem,
Visakhapatnam -- 530044.
2, RVenkata Rao, $/o Arjuna,
Aged about 39 years,
R/o 27-11-16, Sundarayya Colony,
Nadupuru Post, Pedagantyada,
Visakhapatnam -- 530044. . Applicants
Ard
1. The Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
101, South Block, New Delhi - 110011.
2. The Chief of Naval Staff,
Government of India, IHQ, Ministry of Defence (NAVY},
South Block, New Delhi - 110011.
3. The Naval Dock Yard,
Rep. by its Admiral Superintendent,
Building No.42,
Eastern Naval Command,
Visakhapatnam. .. Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant wee Virs.G.Ramalakshmi, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents .. Mrs. K.Rajitha, $n CGSC
iof4
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mrdustice R.Kantha Roo =... 9 Member (Judll.)
Hon'ble Mr.B.V Sudhakar ene Member{Admn.}
ORAL ORDER
{ As per Hon'ble MrJustice R.Kantha Raa, Member {Judi.) } Heard MrSiva representing Mrs.G.Ramalakshmi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs.K.Rajitha, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The applicants have undergone apprenticeship training in the Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam from 31.03.1990 to 30.03.1992. They have successfully completed the apprenticeship training. Thereafter the respondents have issued notification dated 24.02.2009 for absorption of the Ex-Naval apprentice. For the sald purpose a written examination was held on 12.04.2009. The respondents have prescribed certain upper age limit for Ex-Naval apprentice. Aggrieved by the prescription of the upper age limit for Ex-Naval apprentice, the applicants along with some others filed O4.267/2009 before this Tribunal and the Tribunal issued interim direction to the respondents to permit the applicants and others to write the examination irrespective of the age Hmit, # their applications are otherwise in order, Accordingly hall tickets were issued and the applicants wrote the examination, Thereafter the applicants have again approached this Tribunal by filing OA.338/2009 and sought a direction to publish the results. Accordingly 2 of 4 pursuant fo the direction passed by the Tribunal, the results were published and both of them gat through the examination, Subsequently, in pursuance of the orders passed by this Tribunal in DA.338/2009, the applicants were issued with appointment order dated 18.02.2011 appointing them as Pipe Fitters,
3. The respondents however against the order of this Tribunal in OA.338/2009 filed Writ Petition Nos.31812/2010 and 31973/2010 before the Hon'ble Hon'ble High Court. No interim orders were passed and the said Writ Petitions are pending for consideration. The applicants are continuing in the post of Pipe Fitters from the date of their appointment.
4. The applicants submitted representations to reckon their seniority from the date on which they passed the apprenticeship training in 1992. The said representations were rejected by the respondents by two separate orders dated 09.11.2011. Against the said orders, they have filed the present OA. fn the said order the respondents mentioned that since the case is subjudice, no comments are offered at this stage. From the order itis obvious that the respondents have not passed the same on merits adjudicating the claim put forth by the applicants.
5. Having regard to the nature of the facts and also the pendency of the Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court, we are of the view that no adjudication on merits is required in the present OA. The respondents are 3 of 4 wr OES , therefore directed to pass appropriate orders on merits basing or representations dated 21.10.2011 and 24.10.2011 respectively, submitted by applicants, after the outcome of the Writ Petitions pending before the Hon'ble High Court.
6. The OA is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
4 of4