Remanded

Union of India v. R.Aravindaksha Kurup

Kerala HC27 Jul 2016OP (CAT)/168/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Central Administrative Tribunal did not consider the merits of the petition regarding salary stepping up. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing on merits with liberty to both sides to produce additional documents.

What did the court decide?

The orders of the Tribunal in O.A., R.A., and M.A. are set aside; matter remitted to Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits; O.A. restored.

Union of India Vs R.Aravindaksha Kurup — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2016/5TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶6

OP (CAT).No. 168 of 2016 (Z)

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN R.A.NO.180/11/15 DATED 26.06.2015 AND IN O.A.NO.201/2013 DATED 11.12.2013 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1. UNION OF INDIA,

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,

¶11

DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN,

¶12

SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶13

2. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM-695033.

¶14

3. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, KOLLAM DIVISION, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶16

RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANTS:

¶17

1. R.ARAVINDAKSHA KURUP POST ASSISTANT, VADAKUMTHALA EAST, RESIDING AT SARANAM, PUTHAN SANKETHAM, KOIVILA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691590.

¶18

2. THANKAMANI P.,

¶19

POSTAL ASSISTANT, KALAYAPURAM, RESIDING AT RAJBHAVAN, EDAKKIDAM P.O., EZHUKONE, KOLLAM - 691 505.

¶20

OP (CAT).No. 168 of 2016 (Z) : 2 :

¶21

3. K.C. UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI, POSTMAN, KRUNAGAPALLY H O., RESIDING AT KALEECKAL VEEDU, S W THAZHAVA, THAZHAVA P.O., KOLLAM - 690 523.

¶22

4. B. AJAYA KUMAR, POSTMAN, KOLLAM H O, POST ASSISTNT PALLITHOTTAM, RESIDING AT KALLUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PEROOR, THATTUKONAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 005.

¶23

R1-R4 BY ADVS. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SMT.M.DEEPAMOL

¶24

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

OP (CAT).No. 168 of 2016 (Z)

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶28

--------------- EXT.P1	-------------------- : TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO. 201/2013 DATED 04/03/2013 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
EXT.P2	: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. AP/PEN/CC-7/2013 DATED 26/11/2013
EXT.P3	: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. CAT/08/13 DATED 27/11/2013
EXT.P4	: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. OA 201/2013 DATED 11/12/2013 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
EXT.P5	: TRUE COPY OF OM NO. 1-9/2010-PCC DATED 05/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER
EXT.P6	: TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION NO.11/2015 IN O.A.NO. 201/2013 DATED 22/05/2015
EXT.P7	: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL IN R.A.NO.180/2015 IN O.A 201/2013 DATED 26/06/2015.
EXT.P8	: TRUE EXTRACT OF PARA 2.2.11 OF 6TH CPC NORMS
EXT.P9	: TRUE EXTRACT OF PARA 2.2.22 (IV) OF THE 6TH CPC NORMS
EXT.P10	: TRUE COPY OF THE ANNEXURE ATTACHED TO DOPT OM NO.AB. 14017/61/2008-ESTT (RR) DATED 24.03.2009
EXT.P11	: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.163/2013 DATED 08.02.2016 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
EXT.P12	: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.243/2013 DATED 10.02.2016 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.ERNAKULAM BENCH
EXT.P13	: TRUE COPY OF DIVISIONAL GRADATION LIST OF KOLLAM DIVISION, AS ON 01.07.2008.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶30

EXT.R1(a)	: A TRUE COPY OF THE DG LETTER NO.137-4/2006-SPB-II DATED 30/05/2006 ALONG WITH RULES
EXT.R1(b)	: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/06/2008 IN OA 314/2007 & OA 408/2007 OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
	BENCH

¶31

OP (CAT).No. 168 of 2016 (Z)

¶32

EXT.R1(c) : A TRUE COPY OF THE 2015 RECRUITMENT RULES TO THE POST OF POSTAL ASSISTANTS EXT.R1(d) : A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE CIRCLE GRADATION LIST CIRCULATED BY ORDER NO.ST/101/9/2007 DATED 27/11/2008

//True Copy//

P.A. To Judge

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON &

¶37

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶38

O.P.(CAT)No.168 of 2016

¶39

Dated this the 27^th July, 2016

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶42

1.The Union of India and the Department are stated as aggrieved in so far as the Review Application vide No.180/11/2015 preferred before the Central Administrative Tribunal (seeking to have the order dated 11.12.2013 in O.A.No.201/2013 set aside and to have the merit in the Original Application reconsidered) came to be dismissed, without proper consideration.

¶43

2.The issue is mainly related to granting of 'stepping up' of salary of the respondents herein, with reference to the salary of a person by name Anil Kumar who was stated as junior to the applicants. According to the respondents herein, the person, by name, Anil Kumar was always their

¶44

O.P.(CAT)No.168 of 2016 : 2 :

¶45

junior, who, however, happened to draw higher salary and this made them to approach the Tribunal seeking for the

¶46

following reliefs:

¶47

“(i) To quash Annexure A1.

¶48

(ii) To direct the respondents to fix the pay of the applicants on appointment by promotion to the post of Postal Assistant by fixing the pay at the prescribed minimum of the entry pay as prescribed for the direct recruited Postal Assistants in the revised pay rules and grant consequential benefits.

¶49

(iii) Alternatively direct the respondents to grant stepping up of pay to the applicants with that of direct recruited, junior postal assistants effect from the date of entry into the postal assistant cadre and grant all consequential benefits.

¶50

(iv) Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the Court may deem fit to grant, and

¶51

(v)Grant the cost of this Original Application.”

¶52

3.Instructions was sought for from the part of the Dept. and after gathering the instructions, it was submitted from the part of the petitioners herein before the Tribunal, that the grievance was considered and the Department had volunteered to extend the benefit to the applicants. The said submission was recorded and the Original Application was closed as infructuous.

¶53

4.Subsequently, the petitioners came to note that the

¶54

O.P.(CAT)No.168 of 2016 : 3 :

¶55

applicants were not actually eligible to have the benefit of 'stepping up' as a matter of right, in so far as the person, by name, Anil Kumar was not their immediate junior covered under same Gradation list, to claim the benefit as per the Rules. This made the petitioners to file Review Application No.180/11/2015 seeking to have Ex.P4 order reviewed and to have the merit of the Original Application considered. The Review Application was considered by the Tribunal, when it was observed that the same was not maintainable, by virtue of the delay involved. It was accordingly, that interference was declined and the Review Application was dismissed as per Ext.P7 order dated 26.06.2015, as a consequence pursuant to dismissal of the M.A. seeking to condone the delay. This made the petitioners to approach this Court by way of the present Original Petition.

¶56

5.When the matter came up for consideration before this Court, the learned counsel who entered appearance on

¶57

O.P.(CAT)No.168 of 2016 : 4 :

¶58

behalf of the respondents/applicants sought for time to file a counter affidavit. A detailed counter affidavit dated 27.06.2016 has been filed, producing copies of same documents marked as Exts.R1(a) to R1(d). The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit as well, producing some additional documents as Exts.P8 to P13.

¶59

6.During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, Mr.T.P.Anil Kumar was directly recruited and appointed in service at a different place [Chengannur], only on 31.12.2007, whereas, the respondents herein who were the applicants, were appointed in service on the previous day, ie., on 30.12.2007. This being the position, even if Mr.T.P.Anil Kumar had not sought for a Rule 38 transfer, it would not have tilted the balance in any manner, as Mr.Anil Kumar was always junior to the applicants. The learned counsel submits that, by virtue of the law declared to Supreme Court on the point, the source of recruitment shall never

¶60

O.P.(CAT)No.168 of 2016 : 5 :

¶61

be a matter of consideration for denying the benefit. It is further pointed out that, a Circle gradation list was maintained by the Department and by virtue of the actual facts and figures, it was quite wrong and improper on the part of the petitioners herein, to have raised a contention to the effect that the applicants were not entitled to get the benefit.

¶62

7.In response to the above submissions, the learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that the idea and understanding of the respondents/applicants in the Original Application are quite wrong and misconceived. With reference to the relevant Rules, the issue has already been considered by the Tribunal quite meticulously and Exts.P11 and 12 judgments have been rendered in the concerned Original Applications, whereby, a finding has been rendered to the effect that the applicants therein were not entitled to get the benefits. The learned Assistant Solicitor General submits [with reference to

¶63

O.P.(CAT)No.168 of 2016 : 6 :

¶64

Para.No.5 onwards of Ext.P11] that, the factual situation is identical as involved in the present case. Similar is the position with regard to the facts involved in Ext.P12 verdict as well. This being the position, if the order already passed in the O.A. (which of course, is not on merits) is let to stand, it will result in a paradoxical situation and that it is highly necessary to have the case considered and dealt with on merits. The only question is whether such exercise has to be pursued by this Court or to be left to the Tribunal.

¶65

8.After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the merit of the case was not considered by the Tribunal. The petitioners herein/ respondents in the Original Application had dealt with the grievance by themselves and found that the applicants who were entitled to have the benefit, thus deciding to extend the benefit, with a view to avoid an unnecessary litigation. This cannot place any bar in getting the matter considered on merit, if the actual

¶66

O.P.(CAT)No.168 of 2016 : 7 :

¶67

position with reference to relevant provision of law is something else, though it came to be found out much after closing the matter, merely based on the submissions made by the Dept. This is more so, in view of the verdicts passed by the Tribunal as borne by Exts.P11 and P12, which however came to be passed only subsequently.

¶68

9.In the above circumstance, we find it appropriate to cause the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration on merits, with liberty to both the sides to raise their pleadings and produce documents in support of their contentions, including Exts.P11 and P12 orders. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Tribunal in the O.A., R.A. and the M.A. are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal. The O.A. will stand restored. Reply statement, if any, shall be filed by the respondents before the Tribunal within '6 weeks' from today. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 16.08.2016 (as agreed to by the learned counsel of the parties on both the sides) to

¶69

O.P.(CAT)No.168 of 2016

¶70

: 8 :

¶71

get a date of posting, subject to the convenience of the Tribunal.

¶72

O.P. stands disposed of.

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶75

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶76

Bb-27/07/2016

¶77

[True copy]

¶78

P.A to Judge

Union of India v. R.Aravindaksha Kurup

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. R.Aravindaksha Kurup

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

Superintendent of Post Offices Vs C. Joseph

Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Vs D.R.Nandakumar

K.N.Praseed Kumar Vs Union of India & Others

Union of India Vs Girikumar K.K.

Sabia E.M Vs Union of India

J Palayyan Vs Union of India