The High Court of Karnataka rejected a writ petition filed by a retired Vice Admiral challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal’s order denying him HAG+ Scale. The court held the Tribunal was correct as no vacancy existed for the niche when the petitioner assumed rank.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:10068-DB WP No. 15164 of 2022
IN THE HAGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 15164 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
VICE ADMIRAL BOLA RADHAKRISHNA RAO (RETD) S/O BOLA SANTHAPPA RAO AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT 534, JAL VAYU TOWERS, SADANADANAGAR, INDIRANAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560 038
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BOLA VEDVYAS SHENOY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by A K CHANDRIKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
OFFICE OF THE PCDA (NAVY)
COOPERAGE COLABA MUMBAI - 400 005
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMA BHAT K., CGC)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:27/01/2022 (ANNEXURE-O) OF THE HON’BLE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL KOCHI BENCH PASSED IN O.A. 358/2017 & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J. , MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, a retired Vice-Admiral of Indian Navy
is before this Court, questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 27.01.2022 of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi (for short “Tribunal”) in O.A.No.358/2017 wherein the petitioner questioned Annexure-A8 dated 17.09.2013 rejecting request of grant of HAG+ Scale w.e.f. 01.09.2011.
petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Rama Bhat K., for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.
the petitioner was commissioned into Indian Navy in the year 1972 and he got promoted from time to time. He served for 39 years and retired on 30.09.2011 as ViceAdmiral. He would further submit that Hydrographic Surveying is a specialization of the Executive Branch of the
Navy and there is no separate cadre. That the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Rear Admiral along with his general service counterparts due to non-availability of vacancy in the Naval Hydrographic Department. That the petitioner was selected by the Promotion Board in May 2004 and promoted to the Rank of Rear Admiral from 01.07.2004. The post of Chief Hydrographer was equivalent to Rear Admiral and Rear Admiral rank was upgraded to Vice-Admiral. On 07.09.2009, Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (for short “ACC”) approved
empanelment of petitioner for promotion to the rank of Vice-Admiral and on the same day, case of the petitioner for promotion as Vice-Admiral was recommended with immediate effect. On 30.09.2009, the petitioner was placed in the rank of Vice-Admiral and on the same day, the petitioner assumed the post of Vice-Admiral. By virtue of promotion to the rank of Vice-Admiral, the petitioner got extension of service by another two years and thereafter, on 30.09.2011, the petitioner retired from Naval service.
of Lieutenant Generals/Equivalents. Further, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner’s service for grant of HAG+ Scale would have to be reckoned from 30.09.2009, the date on which he assumed the rank of Vice-Admiral. As on the date of assuming the rank of Vice-Admiral, there was no vacancy for grant of HAG+ Scale. Thus, he submits that in the absence of vacancy, the petitioner would not be entitled for grant of HAG+ scale. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
(i) From a perusal of the order of Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal taking note of the contentions of both the parties by a reasoned order rejected request of the petitioner to quash the endorsement dated 17.09.2013
wherein the petitioner’s request for grant of HAG+ Scale is rejected. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Rear Admiral in July 2004. It is also not in dispute that the rank of Rear Admiral was upgraded to the rank of Vice-Admiral on 24.08.2009 (Annexure-R2). Thereafter ACC approved petitioner’s promotion to the rank of Vice-Admiral on 29.08.2009 and accordingly the name of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Vice-Admiral was empanelled on 07.09.2009. For promotion and for promotional posting as Vice-Admiral, the approval of Raksha Mantralaya was required. The approval of Raksha Mantrayala was received on 30.09.2009 and on the same day, the petitioner was promoted as Vice-Admiral. The petitioner assumed the rank of Vice-Admiral on 30.09.2009. 1/3rd of Lieutenant Generals/Equivalent i.e., Vice-Admiral, would be eligible for grant of HAG+ scale on the basis of seniority, seniority being reckoned from the date of assumption of substantive rank of Lieutenant Generals/Equivalent i.e., Vice-Admiral.
(ii) The petitioner was promoted to the rank of ViceAdmiral on 30.09.2009 and he assumed the promoted rank on the same day i.e., on 30.09.2009. Prior to petitioner’s promotion to the rank of Vice-Admiral on 30.09.2009, three officers were promoted to the rank of Vice-Admiral on 01.09.2009. Though the petitioner claims that they are juniors to the petitioner, petitioner has not challenged their promotion. The claim of the petitioner that if the promotion of petitioner were to be considered from 29.08.2009, the date on which the ACC approved his promotion to the rank of Vice-Admiral, he would have been senior to the persons promoted on 01.09.2009 cannot be accepted. The Competent Authority to promote to the rank of Vice-Admiral is Raksha Mantralaya. ACC would only clears the name of persons and recommends for promotion. Approval of ACC itself would not give any right to a person who claims promotion. Only when the Competent Authority approves promotion and notifies promotion, promotion would come into effect.
(iii) It is to be noted that Annexure-R6(2) lays down modality for implementation for grant of HAG+ scale to 1/3rd Lieutenant Generals/Equivalent. As noted above, 1/3rd authorized strength of Lieutenant Generals/Equivalent i.e., Vice-Admirals in Navy would be entitled for HAG+ scale. The statement of objection of respondents makes it clear that total number of ViceAdmirals in the Indian Navy is 33 and 1/3rd of 33 would be entitled for HAG+ scale, which means 8 Vice-Admirals would be entitled for HAG+ scale. The petitioner had sought HAG+ scale on occurrence of vacancy of ViceAdmiral Sri.D.K.Dewan on 31.08.2011. The petitioner could not have claimed the said vacancy since his seniors who were promoted on 01.09.2009 as Vice-Admirals were available and eligible for HAG+ Scale as on that day. Till the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in September-2011, vacancy had not arisen to claim HAG+ scale. As there was no vacancy, we are of the view that petitioner, as a matter of right, could not claim HAG+ scale.
NC: 2024:KHC:10068-DB WP No. 15164 of 2022
petitioner. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
MPK CT:JR LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 45
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal required interference in the rejection of the petitioner's request for grant of HAG+ Scale?
Whether the petitioner was entitled to HAG+ Scale given the seniority rules and lack of vacancy at the time of promotion?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
VICE ADMIRAL BOLA RADHAKRISHNA RAO (RETD)
UNION OF INDIA
THE CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFF
THE PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS
S.G.PANDIT
C.M. POONACHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
