Dismissed

T.Haridasan v. Union of India and Another

Kerala HC21 Jul 2011WP(C)/8265/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a claim for a higher pay scale. The court held that promotion eligibility does not mandate equal pay scales for feeder categories under Article 14 and directed the Sports Authority of India to approach the Pay Commission for the matter.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed with direction to Sports Authority of India to approach the Pay Commission regarding the pay scale issue.

T.Haridasan Vs Union of India and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2011 / 30TH ASHADHA 1933

¶6

WP(C).No. 8265 of 2007(z)

¶7

------------------------AGAINST ORDER DATED 30/08/2006 IN OA.716/2003 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶8

PETITIONER(S):

¶9

¶10

T.HARIDASAN, HOSTEL SUPERVISOR, SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CALICUT, KERALA.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.SIBY J.MONIPPALLY

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

¶14

UNION OF INDIA REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS, SHASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶15

THE SECRETARY, SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, J.N.STADIUM, LODHI ROAD COMPLEX,

¶16

NEW DELHI-110003.

¶17

THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, BANGALORE.

¶18

ADV. SRI.GOVIND K.BHARATHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2,3 SRI.P.M.M.NAJEEB KHAN, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1

¶19

MR.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SG

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WPC NO.8265/2007

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶24

P1 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION 14/03/2003 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶25

P2 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 15/07/2003 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA.

¶26

P3 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 30/08/2006 PASSED BY THE CAT.

¶27

P4 : COPY OF JUDGMENT OF BANGALORE BENCH OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 03/09/2004.

¶28

P5 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 07/04/2006 BY SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA.

¶29

P6 : COPY OF ADDITIONAL REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT DATED 01/06/2006.

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.

¶34

WP(C) No.8265 of 2007

¶35

.................................................................... Dated this the 21st day of July, 2011.

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶38

The petitioner is challenging the CAT order declining his claim for the scale of pay of Assistants and Mess Supervisors. The Petitioner's case is that he was appointed as Hostel Supervisor in 1995 when the scale of pay was Rs.4500-7000. The pay scale applicable to the above two categories is Rs.5000-8000. The case of the petitioner is that for promotion to the post of Assistant Director in the Sports Authority, in which he and others are employed, all the three categories are eligible. So much so, when the petitioner is eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Director along with Assistants and Mess Supervisors, the petitioner should be given the same pay scale as others is his case. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the CAT (Ext.P4), wherein the applicants therein were given freedom to file representation in the matter. However, the CAT in the

¶39

WP(C) No.8265/2007

¶40

¶41

impugned order noticed that one person was given higher pay, but the same was recalled in 2003. So much so nowhere in India Hostel Supervisors have got pay scale equivalent to the other three categories mentioned above based on any orders of the CAT or High Court. We are of the view that the eligibility for promotion to the higher cadre does not mean that all in the various feeder categories should be given the same pay scale. So much so, we do not think this Court can interfere for redressing the petitioner's grievance based on Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, this matter is to be considered by the Pay Commission. Therefore, the Sports Authority of India should take up the matter with the Pay Commission.

¶42

Therefore, we dismiss the Writ Petition, but with the above observations.

¶43

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶44

T.Haridasan v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Haridasan v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs Kap (India) Projects Constructions

Cini Singh Vs State of Kerala

Meena Ashokan Vs State of Kerala and Others

Sapna Maria Gomez Vs the University of Kerala and Another

Aneesha Remesh Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev Viswan Vs State Information Commissioner