Dismissed

Union of India v. Cini A.S

Kerala HC2 Dec 2019OP (CAT)/72/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala rejected the original petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order allowing the absorption of a Hindi Typist into the permanent cadre of Junior Hindi Translator, holding that the Tribunal's decision was legally correct and free from discrimination.

What did the court decide?

The original petition stands rejected and the Tribunal's order allowing absorption is upheld.

Union of India Vs Cini A.S — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶7

OP (CAT).No.72 OF 2014(Z)

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 872/2011 DATED 19-06-2013 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRYING AND FISHERIES, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, KRISHI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES, NAUTICAL & ENGINEERING TRAINING (CIFNET), DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DIARYING AND FISHERIES, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FORESHORE ROAD, KOCHI-682 016.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

CINI A.S AGED 42 YEARS W/O VIJU P., WORKING AS HINDI TYPIST AND NOW ON DEPUTATION AS JUNIOR HINDI TRANSLATOR, RESIDING AT QUARTER NO.2, TYPE-III, CIFNET RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX, PULLEPADY, KOCHI-682 017.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ R1 BY ADV. SMT.M.A.JINSA MOL R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.KUMARAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR R1 BY ADV. SMT.VINEETHA B.

¶16

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

OP(CAT).72/14

¶18

¶19

K.VINOD CHANDRAN &

¶20

V.G.ARUN, JJ.

¶21

O.P(CAT).No. 72 of 2014

¶22

Dated this the 2^nd day of December, 2019

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Vinod Chandran, J.

¶25

The Tribunal directed absorption of the applicant, against which the Union of India and its officers have filed the original petition. The applicant was working as Hindi Typist in the Central Institute of Fisheries, Nautical & Engineering Training (CIFNET). She was in the Pay Band of Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs.1900/-. While she was continuing so, Annexure A1 application was invited for option to be posted as Hindi Translators in the very same organisation. The eligibility was for Central Government officers holding analogous posts or posts in the pay scale of pre-revised Rs.950-1500 (Revised Rs.3050-4590). The applicant was possessing educational qualifications and other qualifications.

¶26

The applicant was, though not holding analogous post, had all the essential qualifications and was also in a post of pay scale as required alternatively in Annexure A1. The applicant was appointed as a Hindi Translator on 20.8.2008, on deputation, as per Annexure A2. She was continued on 'deputation' and was later

¶27

¶28

OP(CAT).72/14

¶29

attempted to be dislodged when she filed the original application. There was an interim order in the original application and she continued while the same was pending before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed her claim and she was also continued when the present original petition was pending here.

¶30

The Tribunal found that one K.Viswanathan in the very same organisation and one P.R.Ananthavally in a Project were absorbed after initially posted on deputation. K.Viswanathan, according to the petitioners, came from one another Department on deputation and was subsequently absorbed. P.R.Ananthavally was under the Integrated Fisheries Project, who while continuing in the Integrated Fisheries Project was similarly deputed as the applicant to a post of Hindi Translator in that organisation and subsequently absorbed in that post. The only contention of the official respondent is that K.Viswanathan was sourced from outside the Department and P.R.Ananthavally's case is not applicable to the CIFNET. We notice that the Integrated Fisheries Project is under the same Ministry which controls CIFNET also. Further, Viswanathan, in any event, was holding a post in the pay scale identical to that of Hindi Typist which the applicant was holding in CIFNET. Hence, both K.Viswanathan and the applicant were in lower posts who on their exercise of option were deputed as Hindi Translators in the CIFNET. When the persons who were sourced from outside the Department

¶31

¶32

OP(CAT).72/14

¶33

from a similar post have been granted absorption, there is no reason why the persons sourced from the very same Department be denied the same benefit.

¶34

The learned Central Government Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kunal Nanda v. Union of India and Another [2000 KHC 1196]. Therein the binding declaration was that a deputationist can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department. The same is not applicable herein because admittedly Viaswanathan who was sourced from another Department was not repatriated to the parent Department and was absorbed in CIFNET itself. Discrimination is the ground on which the Tribunal has found the absorption of the applicant in the post of Hindi Translator to be perfectly legal.

¶35

In such circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The original petition stands rejected.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

vgsx

OP(CAT).72/14

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶47

ANNEXURE A1	COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF CIFNET FOR FILING UP THE POST OF JUNIOR HINDI TRANSLATOR ON DEPUTATION BASIS.
ANNEXURE A2	COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.13-29/06-ADMN DATED 20.10.2008 OF CIFNET APPOINTING THE APPLICANT AS JUNIOR HINDI TRANSLATOR ON DEPUTATION BASIS.
ANNEXURE A3	COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE RECRUITMENT RULES OF CIFNET OF THE POST OF JUNIOR HINDI TRANSLATOR.
ANNEXURE A4	COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING O.M.NO.AB-14017/2/97-ESTT(RR) DATED 25.05.1998 ON AMENDMENT OF SERVICE RULES/RECRUITMENT RULES.
ANNEXURE A5	COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE CONSOLIDATED INSTRUCTIONS ON RECRUITMENT BY ABSORPTION/DEPUTATION, PUBLISHED IN THE SWAMY'S COMPLETE MANUAL ON ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION.
ANNEXURE A6	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.06.2011 OF THE APPLICANT ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR APPOINTMENT BY TRANSFER TO THE POST OF JUNIOR HINDI TRANSLATOR.
ANNEXURE A7	COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.13- 10/89-ADM DATED 07.03.1990 APPOINTING SHRI K.VISWANATHAN AS JUNIOR HINDI TRANSLATOR ON DEPUTATION BASIS.
ANNEXURE A8	COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 29.09.1989 ISSUED BY CIFNET FOR FILLING UP THE POST OF JUNIOR HINDI TRANSLATOR.
ANNEXURE A9	OFFICE ORDER NO.13-10/89-ADM DATED 29.4.91 APPOINTING SHRI K.VISWANATHAN TO THE POST OF JUNIOR HINDI TRANSLATOR.

¶48

OP(CAT).72/14

¶49

¶50

	OFFICE ORDER NO.A1/1-4/89 DATED 19.5.1994 OF IFP APPOINTING SMT.P.R.ANANDAVALLY AMMA TO THE POST OF JUNIOR HINDI TRANSLATOR ON DEPUTATION BASIS; OFFICE ORDER NO.A1/1-4/89 VOL-II DATED 14.11.1995 OF IFP APPOINTING SMT.P.R.ANANDAVALLY AMMA TO THE POST OF JUNIOR HINDI TRANSLATOR AND RELEVANT PORTION OF THE RECRUITMENT RULES OF THE POST OF JUNIOR HINDI TRANSLATOR OF IFP.
EXHIBIT P1	EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.872 OF 2011 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURE FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P2	EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.10.2011 IN O.A.NO.872 OF 2011.
EXHIBIT P3	EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDNTS IN THE ABOVE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.872 OF 2011.
EXHIBIT P4	EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.A.NO.872 OF 2011.
EXHIBIT P5	EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT TO THE REJOINDER.
EXHIBIT P6	EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR EARLY HEARING OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.872 OF 2011.
EXHIBIT P7	EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.6.2013 PASSED IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.872 OF 2011 BY THE CENTRAL
	ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

Union of India v. Cini A.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Cini A.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Marymol Manattu

Union of India Vs T.Vinu

Director of Accounts (Postal) Vs K.P.Damodaran Nair

Bejoy T Nair Vs State of Kerala

R.Krishnakumar Vs Shri K N Samodas

State of Kerala Vs K.N.Somadas