Dismissed

M.Murali Gopala Krishna S/o. Venkata Ramana v. The Union of India

Telangana HC20 Feb 2014WP/29390/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's dismissal of an application seeking continued service as an Examiner. The court held the Tribunal was correct as the petitioner was on temporary appointment and failed to join duty in the parent department after relief, causing lien termination.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without interference with the impugned order.

M.Murali Gopala Krishna S/o. Venkata… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 29390 OF 2013

¶3

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶4

1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order, dated 22.03.2012, in O.A.No.328 of 2010 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

¶5

2. The petitioner/applicant joined as Senior Chargeman (Factory) in the respondents 1 to 5 Department with effect from 14.11.1995 and became a permanent member. In pursuance of the Notification issued for the post of Examiner of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Group ‘A’ Gazetted) in the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, the petitioner was selected and the same was intimated to the 2^nd respondent by making a representation to accept his technical resignation to enable him to join as Examiner. His application was forwarded to the 4^th respondent by the 5^th respondent vide proceedings dated 06.09.2002. His technical resignation was accepted by the competent authority with effect from 27.09.2002. He joined as Examiner on 01.10.2002.

¶6

The petitioner made an application on 15.09.2002 requesting 2^nd respondent to grant three years lien in the post of Senior Chargeman (Factory) in NAS Organisation. In pursuance of the letter dated 05.08.2005, the lien period in respect of the petitioner has been approved by the competent authority. Thereafter, the

¶7

2^nd respondent refused to extend the lien and directed the petitioner to ensure that either he is reverted back to NAD (V) on completion of lien on 27.09.2005 or got absorbed in the borrowing department, failing which his lien would be terminated. The said fact was intimated to the 7^th respondent vide letter dated 05.08.2005 by the

¶8

5^th respondent. Consequently, the 6^th respondent issued office order dated 21.09.2005 repatriating the petitioner to his parent department by relieving him with effect from 23.09.2005. Then, the petitioner made a representation dated 30.09.2005 that he is very much interested to continue in the office of Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks under the Ministry of Commerce and he is not willing to go back to NAD (V) after expiry of the lien period. As there was no information, he submitted another representation, but the proceedings dated 28.04.2006 was issued by the 7^th respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for continuing in service in Patent office as Examiner, which reads thus:

¶9

“I am to refer to your letter addressed to Joint Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, on the subject mentioned above and to state in this regard that it was communicated from your parent department vide letter No.VA/1409 dated 05^th August, 2005 that Shri M.M.Gopala Krishna should either be reverted back on completion of lien period or get absorbed in this department. The posts of Examiner of Patents and Designs have been converted from plan to non-plan, which will be effective from 01^st March, 2006 but the incumbents still continue under plan and decision of converting them into non-plan Examiner of Patents & Designs is yet to be taken. Since, the lien period was coming to an end, hence you were relieved and repatriated to join your parent department.”

¶10

Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner filed the

¶11

Original Application before the Tribunal.

¶12

3. The respondents 1 to 5 filed their statement before the Tribunal stating that the extension of lien beyond the period of three years was not possible under the existing Rules and the said fact was intimated to the 8^th respondent; that though the petitioner was repatriated to NAD (V) and was relieved of his duties on 23.09.2005, he did not report to duty; that after acceptance of the technical resignation on 27.09.2002, he was granted lien initially for a period of two years and thereafter one year i.e. till 27.09.2005, and therefore, prayed to dismiss the O.A.

¶13

4. The respondents 7 and 8 filed their statement before the Tribunal stating that the petitioner was repatriated back since he could not be absorbed as Examiner; that the period of lien is for a maximum period of three years for permanent government employees from the date of leaving their parent organization, and therefore, they prayed to dismiss the O.A.

¶14

5. The Tribunal came to a conclusion that the petitioner was relieved of his duties on 23.09.2005 to enable him to join duty in his parent organization within the lien period and after relieving from the post of Examiner, he should have reported back to the office of the 5^th respondent, but he did not do so, and therefore, O.A. was dismissed.

¶15

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was appointed by virtue of a notification issued by the respondents 6 and 7 and even after post of Examiner was changed from plan to non-plan, he was continued, and therefore, issuing the proceedings dated 28.04.2006 is bad in law in view of the fact that his technical resignation was submitted and as he resigned from

¶16

parent department, he has to be continued in the new department.

¶17

7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents contended that as the petitioner was already relieved of the duties as the lien cannot be granted beyond three years, question of absorption as Examiner may not arise and that the petitioner was appointed as an Examiner temporarily, that is the reason why the petitioner had resigned from the parent department, and therefore, the Tribunal rightly considered the same and dismissed the O.A. and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

¶18

8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was relieved of his duties as Examiner with the 8^th respondent on 23.09.2005 though the relieving orders have been served on him by proceedings dated 05.08.2005. The 5^th respondent addressed a letter dated 18.07.2005 to the 8^th respondent stating that the lien period in respect of the petitioner has been approved by the competent authority and it is further mentioned that the petitioner was reverted back to Navy on completion of lien period on 27.09.2005 or else, got himself absorbed in the borrowing department, failing which his lien would be terminated. The same has been received by the petitioner on 05.08.2005. After relief, the petitioner had to join in the office of 5^th respondent, but he did not join. There was no explanation as to why he did not join when he was relieved from the office of the 8^th respondent. After lapse of three years, he approached the Tribunal asking for the relief to continue him in the service as an Examiner. At the time of relieving, he was not holding any post in the category of Examiner. As seen from his joining letter, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed as

¶19

Examiner by proceedings dated 27.07.2002 purely on temporary basis and appointment would be made on year to year basis. Initially, the appointment would be upto 28.02.2003 but likely to continue and his appointment would be terminable without notice. Therefore, he was not holding any substantive post and he has no right to continue as an Examiner with the

¶20

8^th respondent. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly passed the impugned order and that order needs no interference of this Court. 9. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed, leaving open the remedies available to the petitioner under law. However, No order as to costs.

¶21

10. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶22

(K.C. BHANU, J)

¶23

20.02.2014 Anr

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶25

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANIS

¶26

WRIT PETITION No. 29390 OF 2013 (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶27

20.02.2014

¶28

Anr

M.Murali Gopala Krishna S/o. Venkata Ramana v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Murali Gopala Krishna S/o. Venkata Ramana v. The 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

B. Ram prasad S/o Sri B P Ramalingam Vs The union of India rep by Chairman, Telecom Commission

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Vs K. Srinivasa Rao

J. Sreenivasa Rao Vs Union of India

Smt. a. Padmaja, w/o Mallikarjuna Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

S. Uday Kumar Vs The Government of A.P

P.Shiva Kumar Reddy, (PW1) Vs Chittiboina Krihna Murthy