This judgment dismisses the Union of India's writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order reinstating a terminated civilian motor driver without back salary but with seniority benefits.
The writ petition was dismissed; the Tribunal's order setting aside the termination was upheld.
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 PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.2088 of 2015 Date of Decision: March 23, 2015
Union of India and others
.....Petitioners
versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI.
Present:Mr.P.C.Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
-.-
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
Union of India through Ministry of Defence and other Army authorities are aggrieved by the order dated 27.05.2014 (Annexure P-6) passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, whereby the order terminating services of respondent No.2 from the post of Civilian Motor Driver (Ordinary Grade), has been set-aside and he has been ordered to be reinstated in service without payment of salary though the said period is to be counted for the purpose of seniority, continuity of service as well as other related benefits. [2] The facts may be noticed briefly.
[3] The petitioner-authorities issued an advertisement in January, 2011, inviting applications for the post of Civilian Motor Driver (OG). The prescribed qualification was matriculation alongwith driving licence for driving 'heavy
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.04.21 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
[2]
CWP No.2088 of 2015
vehicles' with minimum two years' experience of driving such vehicles.
[4] The second respondent was finally selected and he was appointed w.e.f. 20th January, 2011.
[5] It appears that after appointment of second respondent, the genuineness of his experience certificate was got verified and on finding that the experience gained by respondent No.2 w.e.f. 01.04.2007 was irrelevant because he did not possess driving licence to drive 'heavy vehicles' at that time. The authorities thus held respondent No.2 ineligible and terminated his services vide order dated 22.05.2012.
[6] The second respondent successfully challenged the above-stated order before the Tribunal.
[7] We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record.
[8] It is an admitted fact that the second respondent was initially granted driving licence to drive 'light travelling vehicles' (LTV) in the year 2007 but admittedly he was granted heavy vehicles (HTV) licence w.e.f. 20.01.2009 (Annexure AA).
[9] It is not the case of the petitioners that the experience certificate relied upon by respondent No.2 was fake or forged. Their only plea is that the experience gained by respondent No.2 before obtaining HTV licence cannot be taken into consideration for determining the eligibility. Accepting this plea, we are of the view that respondent No.2 had, in fact, gained the experience of driving heavy vehicles, for two years, as on 20.01.2011, i.e., the date when he was appointed. The petitioners nowhere say that respondent No.2 lacked any other qualification. Thus, respondent No.2 was fully eligible in every respect on the date of his appointment.
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.04.21 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No.2088 of 2015 [3]
[10] That apart, with a view to satisfy ourselves with regard to performance of respondent No.2 after his appointment, we asked the petitioner-authorities to file an affidavit re: his work and conduct. In deference thereto, the Commanding Officer, ASE Battalion (MT) has filed the affidavit dated 28.02.2015 certifying that respondent No.2 was sent to Udhampur “for hill driving test, which he passed”. It has been further stated that “he has not been awarded any punishment during the service and there was no complaint against him during his service and his performance was satisfactory”.
[10] For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. [11] Dismissed.
[SURYA KANT] JUDGE March 23, 2015 [P.B.BAJANTHRI] mohinder JUDGE
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.04.21 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
[4]
CWP No.2088 of 2015
CM No.3813 of 2015 in CWP No.2088 of 2015.
Union of India and others versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and others
Present : Mr.P.C.Goyal, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner. * * *
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and rejoinder to the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, is taken on record.
CM stands disposed of.
JUDGE
March 23, 2015 (P.B.BAJANTHRI) mohinder JUDGE
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.04.21 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's order setting aside the termination of civilian motor driver services.
Whether experience gained before obtaining a heavy vehicle driving licence qualifies for the required eligibility criteria.
Union of India
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench
Mohinder Kumar
Surya Kant
P.B.Bajanthri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
