Karnataka High Court
Smt V M Saraswathy Msc vs Coffee Board Of India on 6 June, 2013
Author: Dilip B.Bhosale
Bench: Dilip B Bhosale
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE
W.P.NOS.12987-12989/2013(S-RES)
BETWEEN
SMT V M SARASWATHY MSC
W/O SRI M SELVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
EMPLOYED AS PLANT PHYSIOLOGIST
CENTRAL COFFEE RESEARCH INSTITUTE
COFFEE RESEARCH STATION POST
BALEHONNUR POST
CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA STATE-577117 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M A GEORGE, ADV.,(ABSENT))
AND
1. COFFEE BOARD OF INDIA
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
REPRESENTED BY ITS PERSONAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
UDAYOG BHAVAN, SOUTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI-110107
2. THE CHAIRMAN, COFFEE BOARD
NO.1, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
3. THE SECRETARY/CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICE
COFFEE BOARD
2
NO.1, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
4. DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH/THE PAY DRAWING OFFICER
EMPLOYED AS DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH
CENTRAL COFFEE RESEARCH INSTITUTE
COFFEE RESEARCH STATION
BALEHONNUR POST
CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA STATE-577117 ... RESPONDENTS
THESE W.Ps. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1] QUASH IN-SITU PROMOTION UNDER MODIFIED FLEXIBLE COMPLIMENTING SCHME [MFCS] DT.15.2.13, IN PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHAIRMAN, PASSED BY THE R3, GRANTING IN-SITU PROMOTION UNDER THE MODIFIED FLEXIBLE COMPLEMENTING SCHEME [MFCS] TO THE JUNIOR MOST OFICIALS, NAMELY a) DR.P.ABDUL RAHIMAN, SMS-ENTOMOLOGY, CRSS, CHETALLI,
b)SMT.D.PADMAJYOTHI, SMS [W/O JOINT DIRECTOR MR.RAGURAMULU] PLANT BREEDIG, QUALITY DIVISION, HEAD OFFICE, BANGALORE, FROM GRADE PAY OF RS.5,400/- IN PAY BAND PB-3 TO THE GRADE PAY OF RS.6600/- IN PAY BAND PB- 3 WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE OF THIS PROCEEDINGS [15.2.13] WHILE IGNORING 20 YEARS OF SEVICE OF THE PETITIONER AS PLANT PHYSIOLOGIST RIGHT FROM 1993 TO TILL THIS DATE PER ANN-A ETC., THESE W.Ps. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3PC:
None appears for the petitioner. Even on the last occasion, none appeared for the petitioner. Hence, I am constrained to dismiss these writ petitions for non-prosecution. Order accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE TL