This Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order rejecting the petitioner's claim for promotion based on station seniority. The Court found the claim stale and noted the petitioner was already promoted with arrears disbursed.
Writ petition dismissed; standing to interfere declined.
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
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2016/10TH ASHADHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 24512 of 2009 (Z)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 465/2007 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 11-03-2009
PETITIONER :
N.JAYADEVAN,
WORKING AS FITTER GENERAL MECHANIC (HIGHER SKILLED) FGM HS, MES No.225027, AGE, E/M-11, COCHIN NAVAL BASE P.O., COCHIN-4, RESIDING AT MES QUARTERS No.102/3,
KATARIBAGH, NAVAL BASE P.O., KOCHI.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.)
SMT.K.USHA
RESPONDENTS :
R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 24512 of 2009 (Z)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :-
| EXT.P1 | : | COPY OF THE LETTER No.13553/4628/EINB DTD.11/7/2001 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
|---|---|---|
| EXT.P2 | : | COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.16.10.1992 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P3 | : | COPY OF THE LETTER No.MCA/RPOS/EIC (I) DTD.8.10.1986 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P4 | : | COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.20.4.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P5 | : | COPY OF THE REMINDER DTD.26/7/2006 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P6 | : | COPY OF THE LETTER No.1033/240/EIB DTD.7/12/2006 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. |
| EXT.P7 | : | COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.26.12.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P8 | : | COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.A.No.173/2007 DTD.13.3.2007 ISSUED BY THE CAT, ERNAKULAM. |
| EXT.P9 | : | COPY OF THE ORDER No.1018/NJ/05/EL LEGAL DT. 9.5.2007 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P10 | : | COPY OF THE O.A.No.465/07 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM. |
| EXT.P11 | : | COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.No.465/2007 DTD.11.3.2009 OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM. |
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.
W.P.(C)No.24512 of 2009
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2016
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon, J.
Challenge is against the verdict passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A.No.465/2007 whereby
the claim for promotion, with reference to the 'station seniority', was rejected and the O.A. was dismissed.
2
W.P.(C)No.24512 of 2009
“11. The ground in support of the claim of the applicant is that for promotion purposes, station seniority is the criterion and he having qualified in the trade test in 1981 itself, even if date of passing the trade test is taken into account, it was the applicant and not juniors to him who should have been promoted as Highly Skilled Grade-I. A perusal of the record shows that though initially the respondents themselves indicated that the applicant earlier having qualified in the trade test need not to appear again
W.P.(C)No.24512 of 2009
3
vide letter dated 11/7/2001 from the Commander Works Engineers, Kochi, addressed to the Chief Engineer (Navy), Kochi, it is evident from page 5 of GE E/M Kochi PTO No.11/2002 dated 19th March, 2002, that the applicant had appeared in the trade test for FGM HS Grade I held on 16th October, 2001 and qualified in the same. By that time, the juniors to the applicant had already qualified in the trade test for FGM HS Grade I. The eligibility for consideration for promotion is on the basis of seniority amongst could qualify the trade test (FGM HS Grade I), Juniors having qualified in the trade test years in advance and have already been promoted to the said grade. In any event, the applicant has been afforded the benefit of ACP on completion of 24 years reckoning from the date of his initial appointment.”
W.P.(C)No.24512 of 2009 4
subsequent proceedings by the DPC, the seniority was further reviewed. The applicant was accordingly promoted as FGM (HS) with effect from 1.1.2006 and as MCM (FGM) with effect from 1.10.2007, also effecting disbursement of the arrears to the petitioner. The respondents have stated in paragraph 3 of the said statement that, all steps regarding the revision of PPO, Gratuity, etc., have been completed and the arrears pursuant to granting of promotion with retrospective effect, have already been released.
In the above circumstance, we find that the challenge raised by the petitioner is not liable to be sustained under any circumstance. Interference is declined. The Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
skj
True copy
P.A to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can interfere with the Central Administrative Tribunal's finding that the petitioner was ineligible for promotion based on station seniority.
Whether the petitioner's claim for retrospective promotion was maintainable as the relief sought was a stale cause of action.
Whether the petitioner has been granted promotion with arrears and whether the writ petition is liable to be sustained.
N.Jayadevan
Union of India
P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Anil K.Narendran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
