Dismissed

K Ramesh v. the Director

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2024WP/12462/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing the petitioner's application for pension regularization. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision due to inordinate delay and lack of explanation for the delay, citing the statutory limitation period.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was devoid of merit and the underlying application was time-barred.

K Ramesh Vs the Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10408-DB WP No. 12462 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.12462 OF 2023 (S-CAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

K.RAMESH, S/O P.K KRISHNA NAIR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, COOK-CUM-ATTENDER, NATIONAL AEROSPACE LABORATORIES P.B NO.1779, BENGALURU-560 017. R/AT NO.126, KALYAM NILAYAN, 10^TH CROSS, PIPELINE ROAD, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 057.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. PANDURANGA NAYAK.U, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL AEROSPACE LABORATORIES, P.B.NO.1779, BENGALURU-560 017.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. SHANTHI BHUSHAN.H, DSGI)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, BENCH, DATED 29-03-2023 IN O.A. No. 170/00131/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-B, AND ALLOW THE

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10408-DB WP No. 12462 of 2023

¶20

APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINAY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K , J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged the legality and correctness of the order passed in O.A.No.131/2023 dated 29.03.2023 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'Tribunal'), wherein the Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by petitioner with an observation that the dismissal of the OA will not come in the way of the petitioner to file a fresh comprehensive representation before the respondent for redressal of his grievances, if so advised.

¶24

The facts that are apposite from the record, which are necessary for disposal of this writ petition, are as under:

¶25

The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Cook during January 1988 and he has worked till 31.08.2001 with the respondent. Earlier the petitioner was working in the Departmental Canteen of National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL), Belur and later in the year 1991, he was shifted to NAL Guest House. Despite, he worked continuously since January

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10408-DB WP No. 12462 of 2023

¶27

1988 till August, 2001, he has not been regularized by the respondent-Authority. Hence, he approached the Tribunal in O.A.No.1028/2002 and the Tribunal allowed the application filed by the petitioner and directed the respondent to consider his case for regularization in terms of the Causal Worker Absorption Scheme of CSIR, 1995 within a period of four months from the date of said order. The said order has been challenged by the respondent before this Court in W.P.No.39317/2003 and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent vide order dated 15.03.2005. Subsequently, the petitioner has made a representation to the respondent dated 18.03.2013 for fixation of pensionary benefits from the date of his initial appointment. The Controller of Administration of the respondent-authority forward the said representation to the Joint Secretary (Administration), New Delhi vide letter dated 28.03.2013. Consequently, the Section Officer of HR-II has made a correspondence to the Director of NAL on 13.05.2013. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no decision has been taken on the said representation as well as the correspondence referred above by the respondent. Hence, he once again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.131/2023 and the Tribunal dismissed

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10408-DB WP No. 12462 of 2023

¶29

the application filed by the petitioner as stated supra. Hence,

¶30

the petitioner is before this Court.

¶31

We have heard Sri Panduranga Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner so also Sri H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned DSGI for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The respondent-Authority has failed to consider the representation filed by the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits, though the said representation forwarded to the Joint Secretary (Administration) Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Anusandhan Bhavan, No.2, Refi Marg, New Delhi by the Senior Controller of Administration vide letter dated 28.03.2013 and the correspondence was also made with the Director, NAL on 13.05.2013. In spite of that, the respondent failed to take any decision which is violative of the principles of natural justice. He would further contend that the said representation was made based on the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1028/2002 which was upheld by the

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:10408-DB WP No. 12462 of 2023

¶35

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.39317/2003. In spite of the same, the respondent-Authority is reluctant to take any decision which is against the settled principle of law. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶36

Per contra , learned DSGI Sri H.Shanthi Bhushan for the respondent, would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Group-D (Non-Tech) with effect from 14.10.2005 which is covered under the National Pension Scheme. The petitioner, having slept over the matter for a decade, has suddenly risen that no decision was taken by the respondent on his representation dated 18.03.2013. In such circumstances, there is an inordinate delay and laches in approaching the Tribunal by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Tribunal, after considering the same, has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner reserving liberty to him to approach the respondent by filing a comprehensive representation. In such circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is just and proper and the same does not call for any interference. He would also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.C.S.NEGI vs. Union of

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10408-DB WP No. 12462 of 2023

¶38

India and others reported in (2018) 16 SCC 721 and prays

¶39

to dismiss the writ petition.

¶40

Before adverting to the merits of the case, we deem

¶41

it proper to peruse Section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of The Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and the same reads as under:

¶42

"21. Limitation.—(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application:

¶43

(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;

¶44

(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months."

¶45

On going through the provision, it is clear that the Tribunal cannot entertain the application unless the same is made within one year from the date on which such final order is

¶46

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:10408-DB WP No. 12462 of 2023

¶47

passed. In the case on hand, it is the contention of the petitioner that he made a representation to the respondentAuthority on 18.03.2013 and the same has been approved by the Director on 27.03.2013. On 28.03.2013, the Senior controller of Administration forwarded the representation of the petitioner to the Joint Secretary (Administration) for counting past service rendered by the him in NAL on contract basis for the purpose calculating pensioray benefits. On 13.05.2013, a letter of the Joint Secretary (Administration) singed by the Section Officer was addressed to the Director, NAL. Thereafter, no decision has been taken on the said representation as well as the correspondence made thereon. Admittedly, the petitioner has not raised any grievance in respect of the same within a reasonable period, however, after a decade, he approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application. In such circumstances, as per provision under 19, the same is not maintainable. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment referred above held in paragraphs 13 and 14 as under:

¶48

"13. A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced section makes it clear that the Tribunal cannot admit an application unless the same is made within the time specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21(1) or Section 21(2) or an

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:10408-DB WP No. 12462 of 2023

¶50

order is passed in terms of sub-section (3) for entertaining the application after the prescribed period. Since Section 21(1) is couched in negative form, it is the duty of the Tribunal to first consider whether the application is within limitation. An application can be admitted only if the same is found to have been made within the prescribed period or sufficient cause is shown for not doing so within the prescribed period and an order is passed under Section 21(3).

¶51

14. In the present case, the Tribunal entertained and decided the application without even adverting to the issue of limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to explain this omission by pointing out that in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, no such objection was raised but we have not felt impressed. In our view, the Tribunal cannot abdicate its duty to act in accordance with the statute under which it is established and the fact that an objection of limitation is not raised by the respondent/nonapplicant is not at all relevant.

¶52

Nevertheless, the petitioner was appointed to the

¶53

post of Group-D (Non-Tech) with effect from 14.10.2005, which is covered under NPS. Hence, he is not entitled for the benefits as enumerated in the old scheme i.e., the Causal Worker Absorption Scheme of CSIR, 1995.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:10408-DB WP No. 12462 of 2023

¶56

In view of the above, we are of the considered view

¶57

that that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the Original Application, which does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i) The writ petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed .

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

K Ramesh v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Ramesh v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.B.S. Subramanya Gowda Vs Mr Abdul Khader

Sri Ramappa Vs Sri v Srinivasa Murthy

Bhavya. S. S. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Anand Kumar M Vs State of Karnataka

H S Dattarreya Vs the Director

Dr Usha a R Vs the State of Karnataka