Dismissed

The Union of India v. T Venkatesh

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2021WP/9567/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union of India seeking to quash the Central Administrative Tribunal's order. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the respondent, though selected in an exam, was never granted a regular promotion as per Recruitment Rules. Consequently, the respondent retained eligibility for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioners directed to grant consequential benefits to the employee within 30 days.

The Union of India Vs T Venkatesh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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.9567/2019 (S-CAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001

¶11

THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL KARNATAKA CIRCLE, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001

¶12

THE POSTMASTER GENERAL S.K.REGION BENGALURU-560 001

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES CHITRADURGA DIVISION, CHITRADURGA-577501

¶14

THE POSTMASTER GRADE-III HEAD POST OFFICE CHITRADURGA-577501

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI.B.PRAMOD, ADV.,)

¶17

¶18

AND:

¶19

T.VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O LATE OBALANNA, WORKING AS OFFICES ASSISTANT, O/O SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES CHITRADURGA-577501 R/AT 2ND CROSS, JCR EXTENSION (WEST) CHITRADURGA-577501

¶20

… RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI.A.R.HOLLA, ADV.,)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.06.2018 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU IN O.A.NO.170/00097/2017 AND DECLARE IT AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE MACP SCHEME AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The present petition has been filed by the Union of India and other Officers of the Department of post being aggrieved by the order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’), Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, in OA No.170/00097/2017 (T. Venkatesh v. Union of India and others).

¶26

The facts of the case reveal that the respondent before

¶27

this Court was appointed as Clerk/Postal Assistant on 27.01.1994.

¶28

¶29

The Government of India had issued Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) vide Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2009. As per the MACP Scheme, an employee is entitled to receive three financial up-gradations in order to ensure that the employee does not suffer from stagnation. Clause 25 of Annexure-I of the MACP Scheme reads as under:

¶30

“If a regular promotion has been offered but was refused by the employee before becoming entitled to a financial upgradation, no financial upgradation shall be allowed as such an employee has not been stagnated due to lack of opportunities. If, however, financial upgradation has been allowed due to stagnation and the employees subsequently refuse the promotion, it shall not be a ground to withdraw the financial upgradation. He shall however not be eligible to be considered for further financial upgradation till he agrees to be considered for promotion again and the second and the next financial upgradation shall also be deferred to the extent of period of debarment due to the refusal.”

¶31

The undisputed facts reveal that the employee was granted first upgradation on 01.09.2008 and later he appeared as a Department candidate for Limited Department Competitive Examination for the post of Inspector and he was declared successful in the said examination and by an order dated

¶32

¶33

11.05.2012 vide Annexure-R1 was promoted purely on temporary and ad-hoc basis. Later on, after two days of his joining, he was sent on training from 28.05.2012 to 25.08.2012 which was of 13 weeks. The employee did not report for training and as he declined to go on training, he was not given promotion to the post of Inspector and as he re-joined to his original post on 28.05.2012,

¶34

he was granted the benefit of second financial upgradation on 19.02.2014 under the MACP Scheme w.e.f. 11.02.2014. However, an audit objection was raised in respect of second financial upgradation sanctioned w.e.f. 11.02.2014 and by an order dated 30.01.2017, excess paid pay and allowances from 11.02.2014 to 31.01.2017 was directed to be recovered from the employee. Being aggrieved, the employee filed the Original Application before the Tribunal and the same has been allowed holding that the employee was never given regular promotion by the Department at any point of time but, he did appear for the Limited Department Competitive Examination. He was promoted on ad-hoc basis and he declined the said post. The MACP Scheme provides that in case a regular promotion under the Recruitment Rules is given and the employee refuses to join the promotional post, he shall not be entitled for the financial upgradation under the Scheme. In the

¶35

¶36

present case, the employee in question was not given regular promotion at any point of time keeping the Recruitment Rules.

¶37

In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant/employee was not given regular promotion at any point of time. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners are directed to grant all consequential benefits to the employee positively within 30 days from today.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

The Union of India v. T Venkatesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India v. T Venkatesh

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 Director Vs D Xaviour

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

Uma Prashanth Vs State of Karnataka