Dismissed

R.K.Madhusoodhanan Unnithan v. Union of India

Kerala HC2 Feb 2016WP(C)/1291/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the petitioner's transfer from the CISF as Ombudsman. The court held that newer guidelines superseded earlier norms relied upon by the petitioner, and deputation to U.N. Missions did not count toward the required service tenure for retention.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; no costs awarded to the petitioner.

R.K.Madhusoodhanan Unnithan Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/13TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

W.P.(C).No.1291 of 2016 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

R.K.MADHUSOODHANAN UNNITHAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. LATE K. RAMANUNNITHAN, HC/GD, CISF, ASG CALICUT, (RESIDING AT MELLORETHU HOUSE, VADAKKADATHUCAVU P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA - 691 526).

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶10

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI - 110 011.

¶11

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CISF, CISF HEAD QUARTERS, 13 CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003.

¶12

THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, CISF HEAD QUARTERS, 13 CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003.

¶13

SENIOR COMMANDANT, CISF UNIT, ASG, NEDUMBASSERY, KOCHI - 683 585.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT, CISF UNIT, ASG, CALICUT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, MALAPPURAM - 673 001.

¶15

R1 TO R5 BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL SRI.T.V.VINU R BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.1291 of 2016 (J)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶20

EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16/03/2015.

¶21

EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.18/2014 DATED 20/11/2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER POSTING THE PETITIONER ON REPATRIATION FROM DEPUTATION.

¶23

EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 07/05/2015.

¶24

EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 53/11 DATED 20/11/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P6TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 01/01/2016.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶27

ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E-38023/35/RP/ESTT-II/POLICY/2014/313 DATED 23.12.2014.

¶28

vku/[ true copy ]

¶29

K. Vinod Chandran, J

¶30

------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.1291 of 2016-J

¶31

¶32

Dated this the 02^nd day of February, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioner is aggrieved with his transfer to Bombay,

¶35

as ordered by Exhibit P6. The petitioner bases his contention on Exhibit P2 guidelines, which, admittedly, has been superseded by Exhibit P5 guidelines. The petitioner's case is that as per Exhibit P2 “Out of Home Zone” and “Home Zone” has been clearly indicated. A person who has 12 years Out of Home Zone service would be, as far as possible, retained in the Home Zone subject to availability of vacancies.

¶36

The petitioner has around 7 years and 6 months Out

¶37

of Home Zone service and about 4 years and 7 months service in the Ministry of External Affairs, as deputed by the respondents; at the Indian Mission in St.Petersburg. The petitioner contends that, hence, he has the required 12 years Out of Home Zone tenure as indicated in Exhibit P2 and he has to be considered for retention in

¶38

the South Zone, which is the petitioner's Home Zone, subject to availability of vacancies.

¶39

WP(C) No.1291 of 2016 - 2 -

¶40

Admittedly Exhibit P2 has been superseded by

¶41

Exhibit P5. The petitioner cannot claim any vested right on the basis of the tenure conditions in Exhibit P2, which is no longer in existence. When Exhibit P2 norms were in vogue, then the petitioner had an existing right and by reason of his Out of Home Zone tenure, he could have sought for retention in the Home Zone itself, if vacancies were available. Exhibit P5 having superseded Exhibit P2, the petitioner cannot claim any vested right to be continued as per the earlier norms, Exhibit P2, and the petitioner's transfer would have to concede to Exhibit P5.

¶42

As per Exhibit P5, issued in the year 2011, serving personnel are required to have at least 13 years Out of Home Zone service. In this context, it is to be noticed that deputation to U.N. Mission and a deputation abroad, would not be treated as Out of Home Zone tenure. In such circumstance, going by Exhibit P5 norms, the petitioner has, as of now, only 7 years and 6 months Out of Home Zone tenure and, therefore, cannot assail his transfer on grounds of the petitioner having the required Out of Home Zone service as per the earlier guidelines.

¶43

WP(C) No.1291 of 2016 - 3 -

¶44

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is found to

¶45

be devoid of merit and the same would stand dismissed. No costs.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶48

vku/-

¶49

[ true copy ]

R.K.Madhusoodhanan Unnithan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.K.Madhusoodhanan Unnithan v. Union of India

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

K.Sebin Francis Vs Sri.Manilala

Rejitha V.V. Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Smt.N.Sulekha

K.N.Purushothaman Vs Chandini P.

Fazil Bappu Vs University of Calicut

Dr.Suresh Kumar T.V. Vs Cochin Devaswom Board