Karnataka High Court
Rajashekar Auradkar vs Union Of India Represented By on 3 March, 2020
Bench: Alok Aradhe, M.Nagaprasanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
W.P NO.10122 OF 2018 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
RAJASHEKAR AURADKAR
S/O SHRI SHARANALPPA AURADKAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
OCC:SERVICE, TOKEN NO.2742
WORKIGN AS TOOL MAKER
515 ARMY BASE WORKSHOP
BANGALORE 560 008.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENKATESH KUMAR B.S. ADV.,)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY
SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
SOUTH BLOCK, DHQ PO
NEW DELHI 110 011.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EME
ARMY HEAD QUARTERS
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
DHQ PO, NEW DELHI 110 011.
2
3. COMMANDANT & MANAGING DIRECTOR
515 ARMY BASE WORK SHOP
ULSOOR, BANGALORE 560 008.
4. THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 011.
5. THE COMMANDANT, HEAD QUARTERS
GP EME, MEERUT CANTT
PIN 250 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARUN K.S. CGSC FOR R1 TO R5)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PARYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 23.3.2016 IN O.A.NO.170/00328/2015 AT ANNEX-
A AND ORDER DATED 3.7.2017 IN R.A. NO.170/00100/2016 VIDE
ANNEX-B PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH AND ALLOW THE SAID O.A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
None for the petitioner.
Mr.Arun K.S., learned Central Government standing counsel for the respondents.
Record perused.
The petition is admitted for hearing. 3
2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 23.03.2016 as well as the order dated 03.07.2017, by which the original application preferred by the petitioner as well as the application filed by the revenue has been dismissed.
3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed on 24.08.1987 as Turner in the scale of 950-1500 and was promoted to Highly Skilled II on 15.6.1992 in the pay scale of 1200-1800. Further, he was redesignated as Tool Maker in the scale of 4000-6000 on 25.11.1997. It is the case of the petitioner that his promotion as Highly Skilled-II and consequent deliberation as to merge in the scale of 4000-6000 w.e.f. 25.11.1997 is not promotion. As per the case set up by the petitioner, he is entitled for the benefit of 3rd MACP scheme w.e.f. 15.06.2012 in the grade pay of 4200. The petitioner 4 thereupon submitted a representation with regard to his grievance for grant of benefit of 3rd MACP. The aforesaid representation was rejected by order dated 22.07.2011. The petitioner challenged the order dated 22.07.2011 as well as consequential order dated 20.08.2011 by filing original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 23.03.2016, dismissed the original application preferred by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the original application filed by the petitioner is premature as the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of 3rd MACP after completion of 30 years. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an application for review which was also dismissed by an order dated 13.07.2016. In the aforesaid factual background, this petition has been filed.
4. We have perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the respondent. From perusal of the 5 record, it is evident that the Assured Career Progress scheme was introduced in August 1999 under which financial upgradations were to be granted on completion of 12 / 24 years of service in case of an employee if he does not get a chance of promotion during the entire period of service. The benefit of aforesaid financial upgradation is available only if no regular promotions are made during the prescribed period i.e. 12 / 24 years. In the instant case, the petitioner was given two promotions on completion of 5-10 years of service i.e. from Turner to Highly Skilled-II on 25.11.1997. The petitioner was granted 2 promotions, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of Assured Career Progress scheme. The Tribunal, therefore, has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. The order passed by the Tribunal neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6
In the result, we do not find any merit in the petition. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE RV