Dismissed

L.Venkata Ramana v. Gm Scr Secbad and 2 Others

Telangana HC4 Sept 2014WP/21790/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an Original Application by the Tribunal. The petitioner sought regularization of service and back benefits. The Court held official records are presumed correct absent contra evidence and found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's order.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

L.Venkata Ramana Vs Gm Scr Secbad and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.21790 OF 2002

¶4

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed a) to call for the records relating to the order, dated 01.07.2002, in Original Application No.431 of 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) and quash the same; and b) to declare the action of the respondents in issuing proceedings No.B/P.407/III/Vol.III, dated 08.11.1999, as arbitrary and illegal and treat the petitioner as regularly appointed after due screening test on and from 31.01.1979 and direct the respondents to release all the benefits like promotions and pecuniary benefits on par with the persons who have been screened along with him.

¶6

2. Petitioner herein/applicant filed the aforesaid Original Application seeking the self same relief. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, dismissed the Original Application.

¶7

3. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a substitute Loco Khalasi on 14.10.1976 and he was granted temporary status with effect from 01.04.1977. Screening test was conducted at the Loco shed on 31.01.1979 and he was found fit for regular appointment. He fell ill on 21.03.1982 and he reported to duty on 14.08.1987. On 05.01.1990 the petitioner joined duty and he was imposed penalty of removal from service with effect from 13.03.1982. Challenging the said removal order, petitioner filed Original Application No.109 of 1990 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order, dated 26.11.1991,

¶8

ordered regularization of the period of absence by grant of such leave with or without pay to which he is entitled to. In pursuance of the said order, petitioner was reinstated into service on 07.02.1992 and issued a charge memo on 25.10.1993 for his unauthorized absence. As the disciplinary proceedings were not finalized, the petitioner filed Original Application No.1378 of 1993, before the Tribunal, which was disposed of on 11.09.1996 directing the respondents to finalize the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months. As his absence period was duly regularized vide proceedings, dated 16.07.1997, he filed Original Application No.1341 of 1998 to pay full salary due for the absence period i.e., from 13.03.1982 to 08.02.1992. The said Original Application was disposed of on 10.03.1999 directing the petitioner to submit a detailed representation before the authorities setting forthwith his claims in this regard. Pursuant to the said order, he submitted representation to the respondents. In the said representation, the petitioner sought for regularization of his services on par with one Sri S.Venkateswara Rao and Sri T.Sambasiva Rao, who were also screened along with him on 31.01.1979. The same was rejected by proceedings, dated 08.11.1999. The official respondents prepared a list of 133 candidates, whose services were regularized and gave posting orders after duly screening them. In the said list name of the petitioner or the names of S.Venkateswara Rao or T.Sambasiva Rao were not found. The authorities published another seniority list on 24.10.1997, wherein the name of the petitioner was included and date of his regular appointment was shown as 26.02.1993.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that having produced a document relating to the year 1979, the respondents stated that another document of the same year was not available; that if that document is produced, truth will come out to show that the services of petitioner were regularized in pursuance of screening test conducted on 31.01.1979; that the Tribunal passed the impugned order on

¶10

extraneous consideration without considering the relevant material for the purpose of deciding the issue; that the reasons given by the Tribunal are not supported by any material on record, therefore, there is an error in passing the impugned order, which calls for interference by this Court and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶11

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for Railways appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from duty from 1982 to 1992; that no material is filed to show that the services of the petitioner were regularized prior to 31.12.1993; that the Tribunal upon considering the material on record, rightly dismissed the Original Application and that order needs no interference by this Court.

¶12

6. As per the direction of the Tribunal in Original Application No.1341 of 1998, the petitioner submitted representation to the authorities for regularization of his services on par with Sri S.Venkateswara Rao and Sri T.Sambasiva Rao, who were also screened along with him on 31.01.1979. That representation was rejected vide proceedings, dated 08.11.1999.

¶13

7. When a direction was given to produce the record with regard to conducting of screening test on 31.01.1979, respondents herein filed counter in the Original Application stating that the record has been destroyed as three years period has been elapsed. Since the record is not available with them, they have not produced the same. The respondents have produced the record insofar as list of 133 candidates, who were given posting orders after conducting screening test on 22.01.1979.

¶14

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that one document of the year 1979 is produced, there is a willful suppression of another document of the same year and therefore, an adverse inference can be

¶15

drawn under Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. There cannot be any dispute that if the opposite party is having the custody of relevant document, he is bound to produce the same for the purpose of deciding the issue which falls for consideration. If that document is not produced intentionally or wantonly, then certainly an adverse inference can be drawn. The reason given by the department is that as they are not having the record, they would not be in a position to produce the same. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a willful or wanton. Nevertheless, the department produced list of 133 candidates, who were given posting orders after duly screening them. As the record relating to Screening test, which was conducted on 31.01.1979, is not shown to be a permanent record which the department has to keep permanently, the department has not maintained and the same was not produced and so, no adverse inference can be drawn.

¶16

9. Petitioner is seeking regularization of his services on par with Sri S.Venkateswara Rao and T.Sambasiva Rao. Admittedly, those two persons have not been shown in the list of 133 candidates, who were given posting orders on 22.03.1979 after duly screening them. It seems that on the direction given by the Tribunal, the service records of the petitioner as well as Sri S.Venkateswara Rao and T.Sambasiva Rao were produced before the Tribunal.

¶17

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that service records produced by the department cannot be looked into as they are not correct. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, because official records maintained during the course of discharging of official duties are presumed to be correct, unless contrary is proved. There is no pleading or contention raised by the petitioner to show that these service records are manipulated or that they are not maintained in accordance with law or the Rules or executive instructions applicable to the candidates. Therefore, in the

¶18

absence of contra evidence, presumption is that official records are presumed to be correct. If the service records of S.Venkateswara Rao and T.Sambasiva Rao are seen they were not regularized from 31.01.1979. The service records would reveal that they were confirmed temporary status with effect from 12.04.1977 and they have been screened and empanelled for appointment as temporary Loco Khalasi with effect from 31.01.1979. Therefore, the service records would not indicate that their services were regularized from the date of their initial appointment i.e., on 12.04.1977.

¶19

11. Similarly, the service record of the petitioner was produced, which would go to show that he was appointed on 14.10.1976 and temporary status was garnted w.e.f 01.04.1977. Therefore, there is no material filed by the petitioner to show that the services of T.Venkateswara Rao and T.Samabasiva Rao were regularized with effect from 01.04.1979 on which date he was granted temporary status. In the absence of any document produced by the petitioner that the services of those persons were regularized from the date of their granting temporary status, he cannot seek for regularization on par with them from the date of giving temporary status. Petitioner has not stated anywhere in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, that his services were regularized prior to 1993. Admittedly, he was absent from duty from 1982 to 1992 on medical grounds. According to the department it was an unauthorized absence. But, according to the petitioner the said absence period was regularized as per the directions of the Tribunal. Since the Tribunal directed the authorities to regularize the period of absence by grant of such leave with or without pay applicable to him, it does not mean he is entitled to regularization of his services. The respondents have withdrawn the charge memo, dated 25.10.1993 issued to him. In the absence of any material on record, he is not entitled to regularization of his services prior to 1993. Simply because his name was found in the list of 133 candidates for

¶20

regularization, it does not mean he is entitled to be considered for regular appointment. It depends upon the vacancies and seniority in the list of candidates who are successful in the screening test. These aspects have not been pleaded and stated in the Original Application. Therefore, in the absence of any material, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any serious infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court.

¶21

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶22

_______________ K.C.BHANU,J

¶23

_____ ANIS,J

¶24

SEPTEMBER 04, 2014 YVL

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶26

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.21790 OF 2002

¶28

04.09.2014

¶29

YVL

L.Venkata Ramana v. Gm Scr Secbad and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Venkata Ramana v. Gm Scr Secbad and 2 Others

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

Jakka Prasada Rao Vs D.Diva Sulochana Papa

Ganga Nageswara Rao, Vs Indian Bank

Yerranagula Balagangadhar Vs The Authorised Officer

M/s. Subbaraya Constructions Visakhapatnam, Vs The Union of India

K.Satyanarayana Hyd Vs P.O. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyd

M/s. Aishwarya Art Creations Private Limited Vs State Bank of India