Petitioner challenging CAT order declining interference with notice requiring duty and order rejecting promotion. Court held no vested right to promotion exists and CAT decision was within legal limits, dismissing the petition.
Petitioner's challenge against the CAT order dismissed; Original Petition dismissed.
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 KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2016/5TH SRAVANA, 1938
OP (CAT).No. 196 of 2016 (Z)
O.A.NO.565/2016 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 13-07-2016
PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANT IN OA.:
SABIA. E.M, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O. MOHAMMED, ELAMKAVIL HOUSE, THEYYAPPARA.P.O., KODENCHERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA-673580, NOW WORKING AS BRANCH POST MASTER, THEYYAPPARA.P.O., KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH
SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE SMT.V.A.HARITHA SMT.SANDHYA R.NAIR SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND IT, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110116.
2. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA-695033.
3. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, CALICUT DIVISION, KOZHIKODE, KERALA-673005.
R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (CAT).No. 196 of 2016 (Z)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
------------------------------------EXT.P1. THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13-07-2016 IN O.A. NO. 565/16 PASSED BY THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXT.P2. THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION 565/2016 BEFORE THE CAT ERNAKULAM.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
--------------------------------------NIL
//True Copy//
P.A. To Judge
Bb
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON &
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.
O.P.(C.A.T)No.196 of 2016
Dated this the 27th July, 2016
J U D G M E N T
P.R.Ramachandra Menon,J.
2.The sequence of events reveals that the petitioner herein had joined service under the respondents as a 'Gramin Dak Sevak'/Branch Post Master in the year 1991, in the Theyyappara Post Office in Kozhikode District. While continuing in service as above, the respondents initiated disciplinary action against the petitioner and a charge memo was issued, alleging that the petitioner had refused to accept a deposit of Rs.500/- from a customer; that there was a
O.P.(C.A.T)No.196 of 2016 : 2 :
difference of Rs.200/- as reflected in the account maintained and further that the petitioner had refused to sign the proceedings/statement which was incidental to the above proceedings. It is also an admitted fact that, the petitioner was placed on 'put off duty'. On completion of the enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty and as per Annexure A1 order, appropriate punishment was imposed by reducing the TRCA of the petitioner in the concerned scale from Rs.4,920/- to Rs.4,570/- for a period of four years. It was also stipulated that the petitioner would not earn annual increments till expiry of the said period. The said order has become final, having not been subjected to challenge.
3.The cause of action is related to the subsequent events, that is, in relation to Annexure A6 dated 24.06.2016 whereby, the petitioner was required to join duty, having attained finality to the disciplinary proceedings, and alerting the petitioner that she was continuing on unauthorised absence. It was also put forth that, in case the petitioner failed to do so, it would be
O.P.(C.A.T)No.196 of 2016 : 3 :
for the concerned authorities to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law. The petitioner pointed out, that because of some adverse circumstances in connection with the affairs in the family, she was not in a position to join duty in the very same post office and that she had already sought for promotion to the post of 'Mail Overseer' by filing a representation, having already completed 20 years of service. The said representation was considered by the competent authority who declined the same as per Annexure A5 order dated 25.05.2016, holding that no rule did enable to have such an exercise by giving promotion to the petitioner. In the said circumstance, the petitioner approached the Tribunal with the following prayers, challenging Annexures A5 and A6.
O.P.(C.A.T)No.196 of 2016 : 4 :
Tribunal may deem fit and proper to grant on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.”
4.The claim was resisted from the part of the Dept., pointing
out that the applicant was not eligible to get promotion as stated in Annexure A5 and that as per Annexure A6, the concerned respondents had only required the petitioner to join duty and that is all. An interim order was sought for, which was declined by the Tribunal. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal observed that there was no vested right for the applicant to claim promotion as sought for and that there was no justification to have Annexure A6 subjected to challenge. It was accordingly, that interference was declined and the prayer for interim order was declined as per order dated 13.07.2016. The Original Application is stated as pending. The interference declined by the Tribunal with reference to the interim relief sought for, made the applicant to approach this Court by way of the present Original Petition.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, by virtue
of Annexure A8, the petitioner is having eligibility to be considered for the post of Part II - Subordinate Staff and that she satisfies all the requirements stipulated therein. The reference made is to 'Multi Tasking Staff' and the method of recruitment mentioned therein is to the effect that 25% of direct recruitment shall be effected from amongst the GDS staff of the Recruitment Division or Unit, on the basis of selection-cum-seniority.
6.We do not find any such case, as projected by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The reliefs sought for vide Ext.P2 Original Application, were only to set aside Annexures A5 and A6 and also to declare that the applicant was entitled for promotion to the post of 'Mail Overseer'. In the said circumstance, the order passed by the Tribunal on 13.07.2016 is perfectly within the four walls of the law and is not assailable under any circumstance. The challenge raised against the order dated 13.07.2016 fails. The Original Petition is dismissed accordingly. It is made clear that, this will not bar the way of
O.P.(C.A.T)No.196 of 2016 : 6 :
the petitioner in pursuing the matter before the Tribunal, if at
all any other issue is involved.
Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Bb/29/07/2016
[True copy]
P.A to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has a vested right to claim promotion to the post of Mail Overseer.
Whether there is justification to interfere with the Central Administrative Tribunal's order declining the interim relief sought in the underlying Original Application.
Sabia E.M
The Union of India
The Chief Post Master General
Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
P.R. Ramachandra Menon
Anil K. Narendran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
