The High Court rejected the Union of India's challenge to the Tribunal's order granting Non-Functional Upgradation to a retired accountant, reaffirming that pending disciplinary proceedings are not a valid bar for such upgradation.
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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 18TH POUSHA, 1941
OP (CAT).No.8 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 1016/2016 DATED 19-07-2019 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001.
2 CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001.
3 SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001.
BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:
V.T.K.NAYANAR AGED 66 YEARS
S/O.SHRI M.P.NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS (RETD.), 2A, JOMER HAVEN APARTMENTS, ILLOM ROAD, PALIYAM ROAD CROSS, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN- 682016.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (CAT).No.8 OF 2020
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of January 2020
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
The Union of India challenges the order of the Tribunal granting Non-Functional Upgradation ('NFU' for brevity) to the applicant in the O.A.
3
OP (CAT).No.8 OF 2020
recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission. As per Annexure A3 a list was prepared of the 1981 Batch of IRS (C & CE) Officers for grant of NFU with effect from 02.07.2013. The applicant figured as serial No.20 and though serial No.21 was junior to the applicant, the applicant was not included while his junior was granted NFU.
OP (CAT).No.8 OF 2020
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
SHG
OP (CAT).No.8 OF 2020
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.O.A.NO.1016 OF 2016 FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P1(A1) | TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.AB-14017/64/2008-ESTT. (RR) DATED 24.04.2009 OF DOP & T. |
| EXHIBIT P1(A2) | TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.AB-14017/64/2008-ESTT. (RR) DATED 25.09.2009 OF DOP & T. |
| EXHIBIT P1(A3) | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO.A-32012/20/2014- AD.II DATED JUNE, 2014 OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS. |
| EXHIBIT P1(A4) | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO.A-12018/3/2014- AD.II DATED 08.12.2014 OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS. |
| EXHIBIT P1(A5) | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO.A-32012/20/2014- AD.II DATED 02.05.2016 OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS BEARING OFFICE ORDER NO.50/2016. |
| EXHIBIT P1(A6) | TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE CHAIRMAN, CBEC, DATED 10.09.2016. |
| EXHIBIT P1(A7) | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F-1/15(15)/2013-AP-2 DATED 25.06.2013 ALONG WITH THE MINUTES OF UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS. |
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN O.A.NO.1016/2016. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT IN THE OA NO.1016/2016. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN THE OA NO.1016/2016. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.07.2019 IN |
| O.A.NO.1016 OF 2016 OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM. |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pendency of disciplinary proceedings is a valid bar for granting Non-Functional Upgradation to a retired officer.
Whether an administrative lapse in receiving vigilance status can hinder an officer's promotion benefit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. K.V. JankiramanReferred¶7
Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman [1991 (4) SCC 109] · Who else cites this
Union of India
V.T.K. Nayanar
K. Vinod Chandran
V.G. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
K. Vinod Chandran and V.G. Arun
Parties & counsel
