The High Court rejected the gist of the writ petition. The petition sought directions to implement a Tribunal's order regarding pension allowances and promotion, which the Tribunal later found was already complied with. The Court held the petition was misconceived.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
10.wp 9019.13.doc
Urmila Ingale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9019 OF 2013
Shri Arun Kumar Shrivastava Retired Central Govt. Employee was working as Director/Controller Warehousing Material Organisation, Naval Store Depot, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai 400 086 and Residing at Naval Park, 02 Kaveri, L.B.S. Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai 400 086 .. Petitioner
Vs.
1/7
10.wp 9019.13.doc
Western Naval Command, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 023. .. Respondents
Ms.Manda Loke, for the Petitioner.
Smt.Neeta Masurkar a/w Mr.Vinay S.Masurkar & Mr.Vinod Joshi, for Respondents No. 1 to 3 / Union of India.
CORAM : SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI & M.S.KARNIK, JJ. 29th MARCH, 2017
JUDGMENT (PER M.S.KARNIK, J) :
returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally.
the respondents to implement and comply the order dated 09/01/2012 in Original Application No. 285 of 2011 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short) The petitioner has also prayed for the following reliefs.
2/7
10.wp 9019.13.doc
“.....(ii) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ in the nature mandamus or order and direction to the respondents to implement the order dated 9th January, 2012 and further direct them to amend Recruitment Rules as per 6th Pay Commission and issue Promotion order w.e.f. 26 September, 2008 i.e. date of officiating as Director. (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ in the nature mandamus or order and direction to the respondents for implementation of the Promotion order and further to issue direction for granting officiating allowance to the applicants w.e.f. 26 Sept., 2008. (iii) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ in the nature mandamus or order and direction to the respondents for granting officiating allowance to the applicants w.e.f. 9 May 07 to 24 Aug, 07;...”
terms.
“...5. In this backdrop, we are of the considered opinion that the respondents should consider the case of the applicant for grant of officiating Allowance as per rules, duly taking into consideration F.R.49. Respondents shall do the needful within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order so far as the first grievance of the applicant regarding Officiating Allowance is concerned. On considering his case, if the applicant is found to be eligible, he shall be entitled to arrears, etc.
3/7
10.wp 9019.13.doc
from the date he has been discharging the duties of Director in question. Ordered accordingly.
respondents filed Misc. Application No. 1020 of 2012 submitting compliance report in respect of the order passed by the Tribunal. The said Misc. Application was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 15/01/2013 observing that the directions issued by the Tribunal have been complied with. The relevant portion of speaking order dated 25/10/2012 passed by the respondents in compliance with the Tribunal's order reads thus :
“….6. As regards the Tribunal's direction for payment of officiating allowance, it is to state that you were entrusted with the duties of CWH by the MS when :
4/7
10.wp 9019.13.doc
(i) The officer holding the post of Director (stores) proceeded on leave from 09th May to 24th Aug 2007.
(ii) The Director was promoted and posted out wef.26 Sep. 2008 and the post was lying vacant because of ineligibility of officers in the feeder grade for promotion as per existing RRs.
These two temporary officiating arrangements were made by the officer-in-charge of Material Organisation and not by the Cadre Controlling Authority which is IHQ MoD (Navy)/DCP or by MoD, the Appointing Authority for the post of Director.
Besides above, you are not fulfilling all the criteria under F.R. 49 as contained in Chapter VI (Combination of Appointments) in Swamy's Compilation on Fundamental Rules.
disposed of Contempt Petition No. 1 of 2013 filed by the petitioner observing that the order of the Tribunal is duly
5/7
10.wp 9019.13.doc
complied with. As indicated earlier, the petitioner's main prayer is for implementing order dated 09/01/2012 passed by the Tribunal. The principal contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the implementation of the order passed by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the provisions of F.R. 49 (Fundamental Rules). Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on F.R. 49 to contend that respondents have not implemented the order passed by the Tribunal.
6/7
10.wp 9019.13.doc
in contempt proceedings which is not the scope of contempt jurisdiction. The said prayer therefore cannot be entertained in this Petition. The Contempt Petition filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal contending non-compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal holding that the order of the Tribunal is complied with. Consequently the Tribunal is also justified in rejecting the Review Petition filed in respect of the order in Contempt Petition holding that there was no error apparent on the face of the record.
( M.S.KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)
7/7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court should issue directions to comply with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal date of which was deemed complied with by the Respondents.
Whether the petitioner challenging the non-implementation of the Tribunal's order under the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Whether the Tribunal can be considered to have already decided the matter in the preceding contempt and review proceedings.
Shri Arun Kumar Shrivastava
Union of India
The Chief of Naval Staff
The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief
V.K.Tahilramani
M.S.Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
