Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
T Bharathimohan vs Posts on 18 April, 2023
1
O.A.No.39 of 2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALCHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00039/2022
Dated Tuesday the 18th day of April Two Thousand Twenty Three
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (J)
T.Bharathimohan,
S/o. (late) S.Thangavelu,
No.56, L.Abhisekapuram,
Lalgudi - 621 601. ... Applicant
VS
(By Advocate M/s.R.Malaichamy
1.Union of India,
Rep.by the Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 002.
2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Tiruchirappalli Division,
Tiruchirappalli - 620 001. ... Respondents
By Advocate Mr.G.Dhamodaran
2
O.A.No.39 of 2022
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant has filed this OA seeking the following reliefs:
a. to call for the records of the 1st respondent pertaining to his order which is made in Memo No.REP/35-55/94-CAT dated 29.09.2015 and the order of 2nd respondent made in No.B2/1-35/2/RRR/dlgs dated 09.12.2020 and set aside the same; consequent to, b. direct the respondents to appoint the applicant on compassionate grounds by extending the benefit of Judgement of this Hon'ble Tribunal made in O.A.No.1311 of 2010 with all service benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell is as follows:
The applicant father, Shri.S.Thangavelu retired on medical invalidation on 12.07.1993 working as Postman, Valady Post Office. The case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground was considered for postman cadre on 19.07.1996 and the same has been approved by the respondent in his memo dated 25.07.1996, accordingly, his service was utilised as postman in leave vacancy with effect from 25.07.1996. The applicant has submitted his requests to the authority for regular basis. The respondents authorities by communication dated 05.05.1998 informed that they will appoint the applicant as Postman as per the seniority in the waiting list till such time his services may be utilised in leave short term vacancy in the division of the respondent. However, the applicant's service has been apparently terminated without any reason.3 O.A.No.39 of 2022
Being aggrieved the applicant has filed O.A.No.234 of 2013 before this Tribunal and upon hearing by order dated 13.06.2014 this Tribunal has considered the case of the applicant with rival submissions and detail order disposed of the OA.
3. The said order has been challenged by the respondent by filing W.P.No.22260 of 2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Madras and by its order dated 11.08.2015 the Hon'ble High Court considered the case and observed that the Tribunal has given a direction only to the effect to consider, in the light of the above decisions taken by the Tribunal in OA.No.1311 of 2010 and order dated 30.09.2013 and the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.24535 of 2013. Accordingly, the respondents have passed speaking order on 29.09.2015 and declined to consider the applicant's claim in accordance with law and directions of this Tribunal and communicated that the applicant's case will be placed as fresh case in the next circle relaxation committee, when it meets and will be considered on merit for the vacancies of subsequent years along with all other cases, applying Relative merit point systems and accordingly by letter dated 09.12.2020 informed the applicant that circle relaxation committee has not recommended his case due to non-availability of Direct Recruitment vacancy in the respective cadre under RRR quota and less indigent as per Relative Merits Points. 4 O.A.No.39 of 2022
4. The applicant has contended that benefits which is extended to the other similar situated persons after the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the applicant is also entitled for all the other benefits. However, the respondents are acted contrary and rejected the claim of the applicant without any remark of relaxation therefore, the applicant filed OA seeking the aforesaid relief.
5. After notice, the respondents have appeared through their counsels and filed a detailed reply and raised objection over the relief prayed. Though the respondents admitted that the applicant has been granted compassionate appointment after the consideration of the Circle Relaxation Committee in the year 1993. The applicant would be appointed as per his seniority in the waiting list and till then utilise the service of the applicant in leave short term vacancies and he has been placed on waiting list for his regular appointment. However, the decisions has been taken by the authority to discontinue the waiting list and not to give any appointment to the said candidates for the compassionate appointment. Some of the aggrieved candidates have been apporached this Tribunal and this Tribunal has allowed the OA and directed to appoint the applicants on waiting list on regular. The respondents have challenged the said order before Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and finally after the intervention of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the appointment has been given to the candidates those who are respondents before Hon'ble Supreme 5 O.A.No.39 of 2022 Court of India as well as other candidates who have apporached this Tribunal and after the upholding orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court, so far the applicant was not a party to any of the proceedings hence, the respondents have denied the relief and decided to consider the claim of the applicant with Relative Merit Points and accordingly rejected by order dated 09.12.2020 after non recommendations of the Circle Relaxation Committee hence, the respondents prayed for dismissal of OA as devoid of merit and contended the respondents are followed policy which is there made available for consideration.
6. The applicant also filed the rejoinder to rebut the objections raised by the respondent in their reply and reitereated the claim and he has also relied upon order passedby this Tribunal in OA No.1311 of 2010.
7. Heard Learned Counsel By Advocate M/s.R.Malaichamy for applicant and Learned Counsel MrG.Dhamodharan for respondent. Perused the records and relevant documents.
8. It is to be noted that admittedly the applicant case has been considered by the respondents authorities on 17/19.07.1996 for the appointment of compassionate ground and the same has been approved by the respondent No.2 on 06.07.1996 with the direction his service may be utilised in the Caual Leave/Eearned Leave vacancies of postman till regular appointment is made.
6O.A.No.39 of 2022
9. It is to be noted that by considering the claim of the absorption of the applicant the respondent authorities have also taken a decision on 05.05.1998 the applicant for absorption will be considered as per the seniority in the waiting list. Till such time his services may be utilised in the leave /short term vacancies in the concerned division.
10. It is to be noted that subsequently, the respondents have decided to discontinue the waiting list against which the some of the similarly situated candidates have immediately apporached this Tribunal wherein directions has been issued to the respondent to appoint the applicants on regular basis and regularised the service from the entry date. The respondents have challenged the said order before the Hon'ble High Court and even after upholding the Tribunal's order, the respondents chellenged the said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and after considering orders in the matter of Union of India and another Vs. M. Nallavan in Civil Appeal No.7773 of 2009 and after intervention of Hon'ble Supreme court of India the respondent department have agreed to appoint the said candidates on regular basis.
11. It is to be noted that similar issues has been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras wherein the respondents have challenged the order of this Tribunal in the matter of Damodaran.AV. and others Vs. The Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 20.06.2014 uphold order of this and 7 O.A.No.39 of 2022 directed to extend the benefits of orders in the matter of Nallavan and others similar situated person in SLP NO.18992 of 2014. It is also to be noted that Hon'ble High court of Madras by allowing WP.No.42335/2016 in the matter of Shanmugam Vs.Union of India and others vide its order dated 02.12.2016 also considered the similar issue and dismissed the petition filed by the respondents authorities and the same has been impemented and extended the benefits to the applicant there in who are similarly situated to the applicant.
12. It is to be noted that the respondents department have considered the claim of those candidates who have approached this Tribunal and Hon'ble High court of Madras and impleaded the said orders. According to the respondents department there was no directions to consider the name of the applicant's he has not sought for any directions hence, the applicant name has not been included in the said list. It is to be noted that considering earlier order the Tribunal has specifically considered the claim of the applicant in accordance with law and order passed by this Tribunal in O.A.No.1311 of 2010 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court and this Tribunal by its order dated 13.06.2014 in O.A.No.234 /2013 of present applicant hasobserved thus:-
.
.8 O.A.No.39 of 2022
.
5. In so far as the merit of the matter is concerned, it is the specific case of the applicant that after leave was granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court to approach this Tribunal, similarly situated candidates who had subsequently filed petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court like the present applicant have approached this Tribunal in OA.No.1311 of 2010 and OA.No.1072 of 2012.This Tribunal disposed of the said original applications by directing the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants therein as Postman on compassionate ground. The order of this Tribunal in O.A.No.1311 of 2010 was challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.24535 of 2013 and the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the said writ petition, vide order dated 30.09.2013. On examination of the case in hand, vis-a-vis the earlier cases, I do not find any distinction to differ from the view already taken by this Tribunal in the aforesaid cases and upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras.
6. It is trite law that an established maxim ' boni judicis est lites dirimere, ne lis ex lite oritur, et interest reipublicae ut sint fines littium". Casts a duty upon court to bring litigation to an end or at least ensure that if possible, no further litigation arises from the cases pending before the court in accordance with law. This doctrine would be applicable with greater emphasis where the judgement of the court has attained finality and hence the Courts should decide similar cases particularly covered cases expeditiously and in consonance with the law of precedents (Ref. Special Land Acquisition Officer Vrs.Karigowda and Others,(2015 5 SCC 708). Further, in the case of Sub-
Inspector Rooplal V.Lt. Governor, (2000) I SCC 644, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under"-
12. At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgement of another Coordinate Bench of the same Tribunal This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline, If at all, the subsequent Bench of the Tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the Coordinate Bench of the same Tribunal was incorrect, it 9 O.A.No.39 of 2022 ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that the difference of opinion between the two Coordinate Benches on the same point could have been avoided, It is not as if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgement of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgement against all known rules of procedures. Precedents which enunciate rules of law form the foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle which every presiding office of a judicial forum ought to know for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system, This Court has laid down time and again that precedent law must be followed by all concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A subordinate court is bound by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts. A Coordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgement contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench It can only refer it to a larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement. This Court in the case of Tribhovandas Purshottamdas Thakkar V.Ratilal Motilal Patel while dealing with a case in which a Judge of the High Court had failed to follow the earlier judgment of a larger Bench of the same Court observed thus:-
The judgement of the Full Bench of the Gujarat HighCourt was binding upon Raju, J. If the learned Judge was of the view that the decision of Bhagwati, J, in Pinjare Karimbhai case and of Macleod, C.J., in Haridas case did not lay down the correct law or rule of practice, it was open to him to recommend to the Chief Justice that the question be considered by a larger Bench.
Judicial decorum, propriety and discipline required that he should not ignore it. Our system of oadministration of justice aims at certainty in the law and that can be achieved only if Judges do not ignore decisions by courts of coordinate authority or of superiod authority. Gajendragadkar, C.J., observed in Bhagwan V.Ram Chand:10 O.A.No.39 of 2022
" It is hardly necessary to emphasise that considerations of judicial propriety and decorum require that if a learned Single Judge hearing a matter is inclined to take the view that the earlier decisions of the High Court, whether of a Division Bench or of a Single Judge, need to be reconsidered, he should not embark upon that inquiry sitting as a Single Bench, or, in a proper case, place the relevant papers before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question. That is the proper and traditional way to deal with such matters and it is founded on healthy principles of judicial decorum and propriety''
7. In view of the facts and law stated above, as the present case is covered by the order of this Tribunal in O.A.No.1311 of 2010 which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP\No.24535 of 2013 disposed of on 30.09.2013, this OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground in the light of the aforesaid decisions within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt a copy of this order. The OA stands disposed of accordingly. There will no order as to costs.
13. The respondents have declined to consider the same. In my considered view, the issues is squarely covered and no more res-inegra hence the impuged order dated 29.09.2015 as well as communication dated 9th june 2020 is contrary to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High court and this Tribunal and does not stand in the eye of law, hence the same has been qushed and setaside.
14. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicant on compassionate appointment as per the order dated 05.05.1998 11 O.A.No.39 of 2022 by extending all benefits of judgement of this Tribuna's order in O.A.No.1313 of 2019 and other orders recorded above with all such benefits. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
15. OA is allowed. No order as to cost.
(Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Member (J)
IG 18.04.2023