Ganapathi K Naik vs Western Naval Command on 26 July, 2019

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore

Ganapathi K Naik vs Western Naval Command on 26 July, 2019

                                     1                   OA
NO.260/2019/CAT//BANGALORE


                   CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
                    BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU

                ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00260/2019

                  DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2019

          HON'BLE DR. K.B.SURESH                         ...MEMBER(J)
          HON'BLE SHRI C.V. SANKAR                       ...MEMBER(A)


Ganapathi K. Naik,
Aged about 35 years,
S/o Krishna Naik,
Working as Weapon Fitter,
Naval Ship Repair Yard,
Naval Base, Karwar-581 308.
Residing at: Mapasekar House,
Chendia,
Karwar-581301.                                           ...Applicant
(By Advocate Shri P. Kamalesan)
Vs.

1. Union of India,
Represented by Secretary,
Ministry of Defence (Navy)
New Delhi - 110 001.

2. The Flag Officer Commanding in Chief,
HQ, Western Naval Command,
Sahid Bhagath Singh Marg,
Mumbai-400 001.

3. The Flag Officer Commending,
HQ Karnataka Naval Area,
Naval Base,
Karwar-581 308.

4. The Commander Superintendent.,
Naval Ship Repair Yard,
Naval Base,
Karwar-581 308.                                  ...Respondents.

(By Shri M. V. Rao, Standing Counsel for respondents )
                                         2                   OA
NO.260/2019/CAT//BANGALORE


                                O R D E R (ORAL)

HON'BLE DR.K.B.SURESH ...MEMBER(J) Heard. We had earlier handled this matter in OA.No.1002/2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 28.07.2017, which we quote:

"HON'BLE DR K.B. SURESH, MEMBER(J) Heard. The matter seems to be covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Zorawar Singh and Jagadish Prasad reported in (1982) 1 SCC 421, that the effect of the decision is, once a person is promoted regularly, later on found that promotion cannot lie for any reason, notice have to be issued to him and he must be given a chance of being heard before a decision is taken.

2. Shri M.V. Rao, learned counsel for the respondents admits that no notice had been issued to the applicants before they were reverted.

3. Therefore, the reversion is hereby quashed. But then, we will grant liberty to the respondents to issue notice to the applicants and pass appropriate orders as the case may be in accordance with law.

4. OA is disposed of. No order as to costs."

2. Thereafter, once again the issue arose in OA.No.388-396/2018 and on 25.04.2018 we had passed an interim order, which we quote:

"Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. Apparently, this is a 3rd round of litigation. In the earlier orders we had quashed reversion order. Thereafter, the respondents themselves had canceled that order before the matter coming for a final hearing. Now, apparently, the same order seems to be reagitated once again.

Issue notice to the respondents by Dasti. The applicant shall take out notice and have it served on the respondents within 7 days next and produce evidence for having done so.

The respondents to file a short reply on the question of interim relief within next 2 weeks.

The respondents can also file a detailed reply within 4 weeks. In that case, the applicant can file rejoinder within 2 weeks thereafter. In the meanwhile, reversion order Annexure A-11 is stayed until further orders. Post the matter on 6.3.2019."

3 OA NO.260/2019/CAT//BANGALORE

3. Thereafter, the respondents submitted that they cancelled the order and thereupon we had passed an order in OA.No.388-396/2018 on 16.05.2018, which we quote:

"O R D E R(ORAL) Learned counsel for the applicants is present. Lt. Commander Avinash Sabard appears on behalf of the respondents and submits an order dated 10.4.2018 by which the reversion order in respect of the applicants stands cancelled.

2. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of the said order, the OA has become infructuous.

3. In view of the above, the OA stands dismissed as having become infructuous. No order as to costs."

4. Thereafter, again the applicants were reverted, which we quote:

Headquarters Karnataka Naval Area Naval Base Karwar-581 308 CS/4200/FOK/RESTRUCTURING 29 Jan 19 NOTICE FOR RESTRUCTURING

1. Refer to HQWNC letter CS(II)/2577/ Restructuring/Karwar dated 18 Aug 16 and NSRY(Kar)letter HRC/6900 dated 13 Dec 18 (copy enclosed).

2. It is intimated that the extra placement as recommended by Restructuring Board were not considered as the Government of India Order No.11(5)/2009-

D (Civ.I) dated 14 Jun, 10 does not permit the same and there are no such rules/ provisions which can substantiate the same.

3. Therefore in view of above individuals mentioned in Para 2 of NSRY (Kar) letter mention ibid be reverted back to SK at the earliest citing the reason at above mentioned paragraph.

Sd/-

Utpal Bora Administrative Officer-II Staff Officer(Civ) For Flag Officer Commanding CIVILIAN ESTABLISHMNET ORDER PART II (INDUSTRIAL) NO.1.2019 NSPV(KAR) Sl Name and Design Particulars /remarks No. 4 OA NO.260/2019/CAT//BANGALORE 1 Shri Mane Sudhir Tanaji Re-designated and placed in the grade of HKS-II (Machinist) Tradesman(Skilled) w.e.f. 21 Aug. 09 T No. 14392H Authority