2024:KHC:43790-DB WP No. 22563 of 2023 IN…
Petition dismissed; Tribunal order to be implemented and payment made to respondent within three months, failing which penal interest recoverable from erring officials.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT PETITION NO. 22563 OF 2023 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAYAKARA SHETTY H.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. S.N. MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN), RETIRED ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, BAGNALORE, R/O NO.15, 3RD CROSS, VTH MAIN, BINNY MILL ROAD, GANGANAGAR EXTENSION, BANGALORE560 032.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.RADHAKRISHNA HOLLA A.,ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE HONBLE CAT, BANGALORE, WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19/12/2022 ANNEXURE-A MADE IN OA NO.170/00272/2021 AND B) ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION, WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER, DIRECTION, WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 19/12/2022 ANNEXURE-A MADE IN OA NO.170/00272/2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE CAT, BANGALORE AND DISMISS THE OA NO.170/00272/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)
The Central Government and its officials are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing Central Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 19.12.2022 whereby, private Respondent’s O.A.No.170/00272/2021 having been favoured, the following relief has been granted to him.
“ 5. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to grant Rs.5400/- Grade Pay to the applicants from the date of their eligibility in accordance with the Government of India, Resolution vide GIMF No.1/1/2008-1C dated 29.08.2008 vide Annexure A-1, with all consequential benefits as extended to similarly placed persons, in terms of M. Subramaniam case (Civil Appeal No.8883 of 2011 dated 10.10.2017 and Review Petition (Civil) No.2512 of 2018 dated 23.08.2018 ( Union of India v/s M. Subramaniam) ).”
2. Learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the
petitioners vehemently submits that the subject matter of the lis which the Tribunal treated in O.A.No.511/2021, disposed off on 30.09.2022 was a bit of different from the
case of private Respondent herein; the other Panel
Counsel who had argued the case appeared to have inadvertently stated to the contra; that being the position, a Constitutional Court cannot turn a Nelson’s Eye to the palpable mistake demonstrable from records; therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal warrants invalidation, at its hands.
private Respondent submits with equal vehemence that case of his client is substantially similar to the one treated in O.A.No.511/2021; very fairly, the counsel who represented these Petitioners before the Tribunal as Respondents had taken the stand accordingly; even otherwise, a particular stand having been taken before the Tribunal, now it is not open to the Petitioners to resile from same. He also submits that even on merits, the stand of his clients is demonstrable and therefore, the impugned order cannot be faltered. So contending, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition
and having perused the Petition Papers, we are broadly in agreement with the submission made by Mr.Holla on behalf of the private respondent herein. It hardly needs to be stated that the advocates are not merely mouth pieces of their clients nor they are their loudspeakers. They are officers of the court from the days of Francis Bacon if not Cicero. Both on facts & truthful and on law, they are entitled to make fair submission, regardless of its impact on the interest of their clients. An argument to the contrary would undermine the glory of the institution of judiciary, of which they are an integral part.
In the above circumstances, this Petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly, dismissed, costs having been made easy.
The impugned order shall be implemented and amount payable thereunder shall be remitted to the Respondent-employee within three months, failing which, delay would attract interest at the rate of 1% per mensem for the first two months and 2% for the period next following, which may be recovered from the erring officials of the Department, personally.
Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE
Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE
cbc
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29
1 issue framed by the court
Should the Tribunal's grant of Rs.5400 Grade Pay with consequential benefits to the retired employee be quashed as a mistaken extension of an unrelated case's outcome?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v/s M. SubramaniamRelied on
Union of India v/s M. Subramaniam (Civil Appeal No.8883 of 2011 dated 10.10.2017 and Review Petition (Civil) No.2512 of 2018 dated 23.08.2018)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
The Chief Executive Officer, Prasar Bharati
The Director General All India Radio
The Director General Doordarshan
The Additional Director General (SZ)/All India Radio & Doordarshan
S.N. Manjunatha
KRISHNA S DIXIT
C M JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
