The Sr.Administrative officer, For Admiral Superintendent v. Sri.Ch.Appa Rao

Telangana HC2 Sept 2011WP/24423/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal order which affirmed the first respondent's seniority over the second respondent despite the second respondent having been promoted earlier after a pay scale upgrade. The Court held that since the respondents held different grades at the time of appointment, they are unequal, and the Tribunal order stood.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.

The Sr.Administrative officer, For Admiral… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.24423 OF 2011

¶3

ORDER: (Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla)

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 18.3.2011 in O.A.No.512 of 2009 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. By the impugned order, the Tribunal set-aside the order No.PEP/3038/O.A.698/2008 dated 23.4.2009 of the first petitioner and directed the petitioners to finalise the seniority of the first respondent above the second respondent in Turner Gr.I and also next promotion to the posts of HSK II (Borer) and HSK I (Borer) on satisfying the eligibility conditions.

¶5

2. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent was initially appointed as Turner Gr.I in the pay scale of Rs.260-400 on 28.06.1979 and the second respondent was initially appointed as Turner Gr.II on 12.08.1978 in the pay scale of Rs.225-308. The Ministry of Defence, Government of India, addressed a letter dated 16.10.1981 to the Chief of the Naval Staff, New Delhi with regard to fitment of industrial workers of Indian Navy in pay scales recommended by the 3^rd Pay Commission. Pursuant to the said letter, the post of Turner Gr.II was upgraded to Turner Gr.I in the pay scale of Rs.260-400 and accordingly the second respondent was upgraded to Turner Gr.I with effect from 16.10.1981. Thereafter, the second respondent was promoted as HSK II (Borer) with effect from 28.06.1984, whereas the first respondent was promoted as HSK-II (Borer) with effect from 01.02.1985. On 21.01.2009, the first petitioner forwarded a combined draft seniority list of Tradesmen of all the concerned and invited discrepancies, if any, positively by 10.02.2009. Since the name of the first respondent was shown at Serial No.42 and the name of the second respondent figures at Serial No.23, the first respondent gave a representation to the petitioner authorities stating that though the second respondent is junior to him, he has been shown as senior and he has been given promotion earlier to him. However, no action has been taken by the petitioner authorities. Therefore, the first respondent filed O.A.No.698 of 2008 before the Tribunal and the O.A. was disposed of on 12.11.2008 directing the petitioner authorities to dispose of the representation of the first respondent. But the petitioner authorities did not comply with it. Then the first respondent filed C.P.No.36 of 2009 before the Tribunal to implement the orders dated 12.11.2008. Thereafter, in compliance with the orders of the Tribunal, the representation of the first respondent was disposed of rejecting his claim by order dated 23.4.2009 by the first petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, and questioning the draft seniority, the first respondent filed O.A.No.512 of 2009.

¶6

3. The petitioners filed counter in the O.A. before the Tribunal

¶7

inter alia stating that as per the letter of the Ministry of Defence dated 16.10.1981, the

¶8

second respondent was upgraded as Turner Gr.I and as such, the first respondent and the second respondent were holding Turner Gr.I as on 16.10.1981 and that since the first respondent was appointed subsequent to the appointment of the second respondent, the first respondent was shown as junior to the second respondent. Further, it was stated that promotions and seniority are effected as per the rules and the procedure and there was no illegality or irregularity in the promotion of the second respondent.

¶9

4. The Tribunal having gone through the material placed on record and having heard the learned counsel on either side, allowed the O.A. setting aside the order dated 23.4.2009 of the first petitioner. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners.

¶10

5. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners contended that the pay scale of the second respondent was upgraded to Rs.260-400 pursuant to the letter dated 16.10.1981 issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, as such the pay scale of the first respondent and the second respondent became equal as on 16.10.1981 though the first respondent was initially appointed as Turner Gr.I. He contended that the first respondent was initially appointed on 28.06.1979, whereas the second respondent was initially appointed on 12.08.1978 and they were accordingly promoted basing on their seniority and as such, it cannot be said that the first respondent is senior to the second respondent. He contended that if the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is implemented, it would lead to multiple litigation and persons placed similar to the first respondent will claim similar benefits. He also further contended that the Tribunal ought not to have entertained the claim of the first respondent as it is a belated one.

¶11

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent submits that initially first respondent was appointed as Turner Gr.I and the second respondent was appointed as Turner-Gr.II and as such they cannot be treated as equals though the first respondent was appointed subsequent to the second respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the order impugned does not warrant interference and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the record.

¶13

8. It is to be seen that the first respondent was appointed as Turner Gr.I on 28.6.1979 in the pay scale of Rs.260-400 and the second respondent was appointed as Turner-Gr.II on 12.08.1978 in the pay scale of Rs.225-308. Pursuant to the recommendations of the 3^rd Pay Commission, the Ministry of Defence, Government of India issued a letter dated 16.10.1981 wherein Turner Gr.II was upgraded as Turner Gr.I in the pay scale of Rs.260-400. In the said letter, it is categorically stated that the same would be effective from 16.10.1981. As such, the second respondent was promoted as Turner Gr.I. and upgraded to the scale of Rs.260400 with effect from 16.10.1981. It is pertinent to note that the first respondent was initially appointed as Turner Gr.I in the pay scale of Rs.260-400 on 28.06.1979. Though the first

¶14

respondent was appointed subsequent to the second respondent, the first respondent was Turner Gr.I. in the pay scale of Rs.260-400 on the date of his joining into service i.e. 28.06.1979 and the second respondent was Turner Gr.II in the scale of pay Rs.225-308 on the date of his joining into service i.e. 12.08.1978, and the second respondent was promoted/upgraded as Turner Gr.I with effect from 16.10.1981. In view of the same, it cannot be said that the second respondent is equal and/or senior to the first respondent, since the first respondent is senior to the second respondent in the cadre of Turner Gr.I. Further it is seen that based on the so-called seniority, the second respondent was promoted to the post of HSK II (Borer) and HSK I (Borer) earlier to the first respondent.

¶15

9. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that unequals cannot be treated as equals in fixing the seniority. As such, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 18.3.2011 in O.A.No.512 of 2009 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

10. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merits, and the same is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶17

_____________ V.V.S.RAO,J

¶18

____________

¶19

02.9.2011 Stp

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA

¶21

WRIT PETITION No. 24423 OF 2011

¶22

02..9.2011

The Sr.Administrative officer, For Admiral Superintendent v. Sri.Ch.Appa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Sr.Administrative officer, For Admiral Superintendent v. Sri.Ch.Appa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs M/s. Itw India Limited

The Comissioner of Central Excise, Vs M/s. The Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd.

The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/s. Shalimar Agro Tech (P) Limited

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs K. Malla Reddy

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home (Services.Ii) Vs S.Das

M.Usha Rani, Vs The Commissioner Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment