Disposed

The Director v. D Xaviour

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2021WP/23344/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court held that the CAT erred in granting third financial upgradation under MACP Scheme without considering the petitioner-employee's refusal of a promotion post and non-compliance with Clause 25 of the Scheme, remanding the matter for fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition disposed of; matter remanded to the Tribunal to decide afresh on merits after hearing parties.

The Director Vs D Xaviour — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.23344/2019 (S-CAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE DIRECTOR (HEAD OFFICE) MINISTRY OF CULTURE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, INDIAN MUSEUM COMPLEX, 27, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU ROAD, SHASHTRI BHAWAN, KOLKATTA-700 016

¶11

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR ANTHROPOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF CULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE, SOUTH REGIONAL CENTRE, BOGADI 2ND STAGE NORTH, MYSORE-570026

¶12

THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE, C WING, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI.JAYAKARA SHETTY H., ADV.,)

¶15

¶16

AND:

¶17

D.XAVIOUR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O.LATE D.AARON RETIRED AS RESEARCH ASSOCIATE (PHYSICAL) OFFICE OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, SOUTHERN REGIONAL CENTRE, MYSORE-26, R/AT DOOR NO.113, 2ND MAIN, RAILWAY LAYOUT, BOGADI, MYSORE-26

¶18

… RESPONDENT

¶19

(RESPONDENT SERVED)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE ORDER IMPUGNED DTD 16.01.2019 VIDE ANNEX-A MADE IN O.A.NO.170/000456/2017 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE CAT, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The present petition is arising out of the order dated 16.01.2019 in OA No.170/000456/2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) by which the Tribunal has held that the respondent-employee is entitled for grant of third financial upgradation under Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP).

¶24

¶25

The facts of the case reveal that the employee was initially appointed on 13.11.1986 and he was granted first and second financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme. He was entitled for third financial upgradation and the same was granted after 30 years of his service. It is pertinent to note that prior to grant of third financial upgradation, he was granted promotion on 11.03.2014. However, he has refused to accept the promotion post and in the circumstances, the benefit granted under the third financial upgradation vide order dated 30.12.2016 has been withdrawn. The Tribunal has not at all taken into account the aforesaid factual aspects and has also not looked into Clause 25 of the MACP Scheme while passing the impugned order. Nothing finds place in the order of the Tribunal, which is a non-speaking order. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide afresh on merits after hearing the parties at length. The earlier order passed by the Tribunal as well as the order passed by this Court will not come in the way for deciding the matter afresh as directed.

¶26

The respondent before this Court in spite of service of notice has remained absent. Therefore, the Tribunal will

¶27

¶28

issue a fresh notice to the respondent and only after service of notice, the matter shall be heard and decided.

¶29

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE Sd/JUDGE

¶31

The Director v. D Xaviour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director v. D Xaviour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sakappa Vs the State of Karnataka

m/s. karnataka state road Vs the assistant director

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs Dr Vinay Kumar

The Union of India Vs T Venkatesh

Sri.K.N. Narayana Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Uma Prashanth Vs State of Karnataka