Karnataka High Court
Union Of India And Ros vs Gurunath Akkanna And Anr on 8 July, 2021
Bench: S.G.Pandit, M.G.S.Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO.200216/2021 (S-CAT)
Between:
1. Union of India
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan
New Delhi - 110 001
2. The Postmaster General
North Karnataka Region
Dharwad - 580 001
3. The Supt. of Post Offices
Bidar Division
Bidar - 585 401
... Petitioners
(By Sri Sudhirsingh R. Vijapur, Advocate)
And:
1. Gurunath Akkanna
S/o Kashappa Akkanna
Age : 58 years
Working as Accountant
Bidar HPO - 585 401
2
Residing at H.No.19-1-131
Shivanagara, Bankers Colony
Dist: Bidar - 585 401
2. Mallikarjun Vakare
S/o Kashappa Vakare
Age : 63 years
Retired as Sub-Postmaster
Mangalwarpet
Bidar - 585 401
Residing at H.No.9-8-28
Vidyanagar Colony
BVB College Road
Dist.Bidar - 585 403
Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Patil, Advocate for R1 & R2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the Order
dated 23/07/2018 and 05/03/2020 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in
O.A.No.170/00442/2017 and Review Application
No.76/2019 on its file (Annexures-A and B).
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'
group, this day, S.G.Pandit, J., made the following:
3
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court assailing the correctness or otherwise of order dated 23/07/2018 in O.A.No.170/00442/2017 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, wherein the petitioners are directed to extend the benefit to the applicants in terms of Annexure-'A7' order dated 01/10/2013 in O.A.No.79/2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench.
2. Heard Sri Sudhirsingh R. Vijapur, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mahesh Patil, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. The order of Original Application reads as under:
"Both counsels submit that the matter in its principle is covered by Annexure-A7 judgment of the Bench at Ernakulam. At the instance of the learned counsels we had gone through it and find that the matter seems to be similar in all respects. We do not find any reason not to follow the same 4 judgment as it is in compliance with the rules as available. At this point Shri S Sugumaran, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that there may be an issue of counting the service as some break in service will also have to be accommodated and adjusted. That we will leave it to the respondents themselves to rationally accommodate it so that the break will be excluded and the other surviving element only will be taken into account but otherwise to the extent possible the Ernakulam Bench decision will be followed in the case of the applicants also. At this point of time Shri Sugumaran, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that it may be made clear that the MACP will not be applicable, but that is covered by the Ernakulam Bench judgment also. That will not be to the extent as is shown.
The OA is allowed to this limited extent. No order as to costs."
4. A perusal of the above order reveals that the Central Administrative Tribunal proceeded to pass the orders on the consent given by the learned counsel for the respondent Union of India, petitioners herein, stating that the issue in application is covered by the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, 5 Ernakulam Bench as per Order dated 01/10/2013 in O.A. 79/2011.
5. As it is a consent order, it is not open for the petitioners to challenge the same before this Court. It is open for the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal itself.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Mkm