Allowed

The Union of India v. v.R.Sivarajan

Kerala HC18 Jun 2019OP (CAT)/119/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal order granting notional promotion of an appellant from Private Secretary to Senior Private Secretary with effect from 01.04.2011 to rectify delay and restore pensionary benefits without financial burden on state.

What did the court decide?

Notional promotion granted with effect from 01.04.2011 for the purpose of retiral benefits.

The Union of India Vs v.R.Sivarajan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1941 OP (CAT).No.119 of 2015

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 1180/2012 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 14-11-2014

¶8

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶10

2 THE CHIEF OF AIR STAFF AIR HEADQUARTERS, VAYU BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110106.

¶11

3 THE AIR OFFICER COMMANDING IN CHIEF HEADQUARTERS SOUTHERN AIR COMMAND, SOUTHERN AIR COMMAND, INDIAN AIR FORCE, AKKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011.

¶12

4 COMMANDING OFFICER HEADQUARTERS SOUTHERN AIR COMMAND (UNIT), SOUTHERN AIR COMMAND, INDIAN AIR FORCE, AKKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC

¶14

RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:

¶15

V.R.SIVARAJAN

¶16

AGED 57 YEARS, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY TO AIR MARSHALL RANK OFFICER, HEAD QUARTERS, SOUTHERN AIR COMMAND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695031.

¶17

BY ADVS. DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA SRI.JOY C. PAUL

¶18

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.06.2019, THE COURT ON 18.06.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

OP(CAT) No.119/2015

JUDGMENT

Ashok Menon, J.

The short question that arises for consideration before us is whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in directing the petitioners herein to consider the date of promotion of the

¶24

respondent/applicant as Senior Private Secretary to Air Marshal Rank Officer, notionally with effect from 01.04.2011, for the purpose of retiral benefits on the ground that there was delay in completing the procedural formalities by the petitioners.

¶25

Aggrieved by the impugned order in O.A.No.

¶26

1180/2012 the petitioners are before us questioning the propriety of the order.

¶27

The applicant was promoted as Private Secretary

¶28

on 14.05.2007. To be promoted as Senior Private Secretary, he required 3 years of service as Private Secretary. He completed that 3 years period on

¶29

14.05.2010 and became eligible. But he was not

¶30

empanelled in the list prepared on 01.01.2010, since he had not completed 3 years on that date. However, for the year 2011-12 he could be considered.

¶31

OP(CAT) No.119/2015

¶32

¶33

The applicant would contend that there were

¶34

eight vacancies during the year 2011-12. Though the DPC ought to have been held even prior to 01.01.2011, so as to work out promotions to the applicant on time, it was held only on 08.08.2011 and consequent to which, he was promoted. The delay deprived him a grade promotion, and the consequential benefits. He seeks his promotion to be antedated with effect from 14.05.2010. The Tribunal partially agreed to the claim, and directed notional promotion to be given with effect from 01.04.2011.

¶35

Per contra , the learned CGC appearing for the

¶36

petitioners would contend that there were no vacancy in the cadre of Senior PS either on 01.01.2011, nor on

¶37

01.04.2011, the date from which the promotion is directed

¶38

to be given to the applicant by the Tribunal. The petitioners would contend that only two posts upgraded as Senior Private Secretary on 18.07.2011 were available, and hence, DPC was held on 08.08.2011 to consider the eligibility of the applicant for promotion. He was found eligible.

¶39

No.2955/2012 dated 03.10.2013 has directed the

¶40

OP(CAT) No.119/2015

¶41

¶42

authorities to have a DPC meeting held to ascertain the fitness of the respondent therein for promotion at the relevant time, and if so, to grant him notional promotion without any benefits by way of arrears of pay or other allowances so that, he would be eligible only to nondeprivation of increase in pension and other retiral benefits as will be available to him in the higher scale of pay.

¶43

In the instant case, however, the DPC was held, but held belatedly. We are in agreement with the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the DPC ought to have been held either before the 1^st of January 2011, or atleast, by March of that year for the vacancies arising during the year. Admittedly, there was delay in holding the DPC, depriving the applicant of timely promotion. Ext.P4 is the Annexures produced along with the O.A. to indicate that persons, who had joined service even subsequent to the applicant were promoted as Senior Private Secretary before his promotion. The fact that there were eight vacancies has not been controverted in so many words by the petitioners.

¶44

OP(CAT) No.119/2015

¶45

¶46

We are of the considered view that the Tribunal

¶47

was justified in ordering notional promotion to be granted to the applicant with effect from 01.04.2011.

¶48

There is no financial burden on the petitioners, but at the same time, the applicant would be benefited by a refixation of his pensionary benefits due on the enhanced grade pay he would be entitled to.

¶49

The Original Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/-

V.CHITAMBARESH

JUDGE

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

dkr

OP(CAT) No.119/2015

¶58

¶59

APPENDIX

¶60

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶61

EXHIBIT P1	COPY OF THE OA 1180/2012 BY THE RESPONDENT.	DT.2-12-12 FILED
EXHIBIT P2	COPY OF THE REPLY STATEM PETITIONERS.	ENT FILED BY THE
EXHIBIT P3	COPY OF THE REJOINDER RESPONDENT DT.20-9-2013.	FILED BY THE
EXHIBIT P4	COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.	REPLY STATEMENT
EXHIBIT P5	COPY OF THE ADDIT DT.8.6.2014 FILED BY THE	IONAL REJOINDER APPLICANT IN OA.
EXHIBIT P6	COPY OF THE REPLY TO REJOINDER FILED BY THE PE	THE ADDITIONAL TITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P7	COPY OF THE ORDER I DT.14.11.2014 OF THE CAT,	N OA 1180/2012 ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P8	COPY OF THE ORDER DT.29.9.2011 OF THE CAT,	IN OA 911/2010 ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P9	COPY OF THE ORDER IN DT.3.10.2013 OF THE HIGH	OP(CAT) 2955/2012 COURT.

The Union of India v. v.R.Sivarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India v. v.R.Sivarajan

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

The Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Jaimon V.J.

Union of India Vs Roopesh Raju

K. Babukumaran Nair Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Amla.R. Vs Union of India

The Principal Secretary Vs P.Radhakrishnapillai

Prabhakumari G Vs the Director of Insurance Medical Services