Union of India and Ors. Vs a.Selvam and Ors.

By the impugned order, the Tribunal, directed the authorities to adhere to the decision dated July 23, 2007 relating to merger of the post of the Senior Investigator and Statistical Officer/Evaluation Officer

¶14

2

¶15

subject to the conditions that necessary amendment will be done in the Recruitment Rules.

¶16

Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submits that, the writ petition was initially taken up for consideration on February 25,2023, when, the writ petition was dismissed. A special leave petition was carried before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by an order dated September 14, 2023 the Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded the writ petition for fresh consideration by this Court.

¶17

None appears for the respondent in spite of service. In fact, two affidavits of service were filed in Court.

¶18

Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submits that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration, the impugned order before the Tribunal dated July 04, 2011 as also an order of the authorities prior thereto dated September 01,2009 relating to the subject while passing the impugned order. Those orders are materials and words consideration by the Tribunal.

¶19

He submits that the impugned order is a non-speaking.

¶20

On perusal of the records, we find that, the private respondent, approached the Tribunal for the following relief(s):-

¶21

“A. An order be passed permitting the applicants to join together and file this instant original application under Rule 4 (5) (a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 as the cause of action and the nature of relief sought for is one and the same having common interest in the manner.

¶22

B. An order be passed setting aside the impugned order dated 04/07/2011 passed by the respondent no.1 whereby rejected the claim of the applicants for grade pay of Rs.4600/- from 01/01/2006 and

¶23

3

¶24

merger of the post of Senior Investigator with Statistical Officer and redesignate the post of Statistical Officer.

¶25

C. An order be passed directing the respondent authorities, Andaman and Nicobar Administration to act in accordance with the approval letter dated 03/7/2007 of the respondent no.1 for merger of the post of Senior Investigator that were inexistence as on 23/7/2007 with that of Statistical Officer.

¶26

D. An order be passed directing the Respondent authorities, particularly the respondent No.1 & 6 to allow the claim of the applicants for grade pay of Rs.4600/- from 01/01/2006 at par with the other similarly placed officials in Statistical Cadre under different Administration.

¶27

E. An order be passed directing the respondent authorities to transmit the original records of the case before this Hon’ble Court, so that after perusing the same conscionable justice may be rendered to the applicant.

¶28

F. Any other relief or relief’s, order or orders, direction or directions as your Honour deem fit and proper.”

¶29

Essentially, the private respondents herein were seeking relief with regard to merger of the post and post facto benefit being accorded to them. They applied before the authorities for grant of such benefits which was rejected by the order dated July 04, 2011. Aggrieved by such decision, the private respondents approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, without alluding to the decision of the authorities rejecting the claim of the private respondent by the order dated July 04, 2011 proceed to direct the authorities to comply with the decision of the authorities dated July 23, 2007. The authorities subsequent to the decision dated July 23, 2007 took another decision dated September 1, 2009. This decision of the authorities dated September 01, 2009 was also not taken into consideration by the impugned order of the Tribunal.

¶30

We find substance in the contention of the learned advocate

¶31

for the petitioners that, the Tribunal did not ascribe any reasons as to

¶32

4

¶33

why, it directed the authorities to act in terms of the decision dated July, 23, 2007.

¶34

In such circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dated August 24, 2012 of the Central Administrative Tribunal and remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh hearing on merits.

¶35

WP.CT/78/2013 is disposed of without any order as to costs.

¶36

( DEBANGSU BASAK, J. )

¶37

I agree.

¶38

( BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.)

Union of India and Ors. v. a.Selvam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. a.Selvam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anapam Banerjee Vs State of West Bengal

Prasanta Sahoo @ Prasanta Kumar Sahoo Vs State of West Bengal

Palan Ali Laskar & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal

Abdul Islam Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.

Victim Girl Vs Subham Mazumder and Anr.

K.Balasubramanian Vs the State