Disposed

T.K.Krishnakumar v. Union of India

Madras HC3 Sept 2019WP/26255/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order admitting his original application by merely ordering notice without deciding the interim prayer for guranteeing directions against deputation. The Court held the Tribunal was obliged to consider the interim relief and directed it to decide the matter within eight weeks before disposing of the writ.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Central Administrative Tribunal to decide the interim relief prayer within eight weeks.

T.K.Krishnakumar Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 03.09.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶7

WP.No.26255/2019 & WMP.No.25639/2019

¶8

T.K.Krishnakumar .. Petitioner
Versus
1.Union of India
represented by the Secretary
to Government, Ministry of Shipping
Transport Bhavan, Government of
India, 1, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi 110 001.
2.The Director General of Shipping
[Ministry of Shipping], 9 th Floor
Beta Building, i-Think Techno Campus
Kanjurmarg [East]
Mumbai 400 042.
3.Under Secretary to Government
Department of Personnel and Training
North Block, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi, Delhi 110 001.
4.The Secretary
Union Public Services Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi 110 069.
5.Assistant Director General of Shipping
Directorate General of Shipping, Mumbai
Ministry of Shipping, Government of India.
6.The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal
Chennai 600 104. .. Respondents

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

Prayer:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to Notice dated 02.08.2019 issued by the 6^th respondent Tribunal in OA.No310/1035/2019 and consequently to restrain the respondents from making any appointment to the post of Shipping Master/Director by method of deputation pending disposal of OA.No.310/1035/2019.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar for M/s.Giridhar and Sai For RR1,2,3&5 : Mr.G.Karthikeyan, ASG

¶12

ORDER

¶13

[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,]

¶14

(1)The petitioner is the Applicant in OA.No.310/1035/2019 and he filed the said Original Application to declare that the Shipping, Seamen's employment and Seamen's Welfare Officer [Group A and Group B Posts] Recruitment Rules, 1995, insofar as ''transfer on deputation'' is provided as a method of recruitment to fill up the post of Shipping Master is concerned, as invalid and unconstitutional with consequential prayers, calling for the records relating to the orders dated 18.04.2018 ; 28.12.2015 and 12.06.2019 and to quash the same with a further direction, directing the official respondent to consider his claim for promotion to the post of Shipping Master by relaxing the Recruitment Rules if deemed necessary with all consequential benefits.

¶15

(2)The writ petitioner, pending disposal of the Original Application, also prayed for appropriate direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to promote him to the post of Shipping Master on an Ad hoc basis or in the alternative, to restrain the respondents from making any appointment to the post of Shipping Master/Director by method of deputation, pending disposal of the Original Application.

¶16

(3)The said Original Application was admitted on 02.08.2019 and notice was ordered and the Tribunal also directed listing of the matter before the Registrar for completion of the pleadings with a further direction to list the matter on 07.11.2019. The Original Applicant/writ petitioner, challenging the said proceedings of the Tribunal in ordering notice alone, came forward to file the present writ petition.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

(4)The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though there is no practice to file a separate miscellaneous petition for interim orders, the fact remains that a prayer has been made for grant of interim relief and though the Tribunal has admitted the matter, ought to have decided the interim prayer and therefore, prays for appropriate orders.

¶19

(5)Mr.G.Karthikeyan, learned Assistant Solicitor General accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5 and he would submit that the writ petition is not maintainable against the order of Tribunal in ordering notice and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶20

(6)This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.

¶21

(7)A perusal of the impugned order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the Tribunal would disclose that the main Original Application was admitted with a direction to list the matter before the Registrar for completion of the pleadings and also to post the main matter on 07.11.2019. It is to be noted at this juncture that the petitioner also prays for interim relief. Therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to consider the prayer for interim relief also.

¶22

(8)In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, shall accord priority and decide the interim relief prayed for by the writ petitioner as expeditiously as possible, and not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

(9)The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(insp cell)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar
AP

¶28

¶29

1.The Secretary to Government, Union of India, Ministry of Shipping

¶30

Transport Bhavan, Government of India, 1, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110 001.

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

2.The Director General of Shipping
[Ministry of Shipping], 9 th Floor
Beta Building, i-Think Techno Campus
Kanjurmarg [East]
Mumbai 400 042.
3.The Under Secretary to Government
Department of Personnel and Training
North Block, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi, Delhi 110 001.
4.The Secretary
Union Public Services Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi 110 069.
5.Assistant Director General of Shipping
Directorate General of Shipping, Mumbai
Ministry of Shipping, Government of India.
6.The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal
Chennai 600 104.
+1cc to Mr.G.Karthikeyan, Advocate SR.No. 76457
+1cc to Mr.Giridhar , Advocate SR.No. 76065
WP.No.26255/2019
pvs
A.SK(30/09/2019)

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

T.K.Krishnakumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K.Krishnakumar 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

Technova Tapes India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Technova Imaging Systems (P)

K.Devamani, S/o.Kaliyamoorthy Vs Union Territory of Puducherry

Rubinetterie Bresciane Bonomi Vs M/S Lehry Instrumentation &

K.Ashok Kumar Vs M/s.Andhra Bank

M.Siva, Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

Siruthai v.Kittu Vs The District Collector