Al ,,,
IN '"I'I--IE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28% DAY OF OCTOBER. 2010,;
PRESENT
THE IIONBLE MR. JUSTICE \/fIG.SAI3IIIAI/Iii? »
AND
THE I--ION'SLE MRS JUSTICE-B.V.._VNAGARPI+fH1§IA
WRIT PETITION;I2'OQ;?I'{~S-CAT).
BETWEEN: ' I I
LTHE REGIONAL I§E'OvIDEI>I_T I. "
FUND COMI\/§i'SSI«f)I\EE'R_~II'-{fifirnlffi}._ '
BI-IAVISI-IYA1\H.,IZ)HI ij3HAV'ANI;"~G_' ..
NO. 13, RAJARAI'./I Ix/IaIIAI~I. ROY «
ROAD. EANGAL::_RE 4» 560 0235.. _'
2.'1'HE ASSISTANT.I§ROvII'D-E'NT"EUND
COMMISSIONER, SUB 'ACCOUNTS
OFF'ICE,..PEEN"{A, NO.44~7, 4% PHASE,
__. _ 2ND STAGE, I3EENYA,I_N_D.'DS'TRIAL AREA,
560 058.
II3_,PiI'y{.f5L{3:Y,¥13.E5§ JQROVIDENT FUND
OEGANISAT.ON'.~;;BY ITS CENTRAL
PROVIDENT F'{.J'ND COMMISSIONER.
I . HEAD"OF'§?ICE. BIIAVISI---IYA NIDIII
. EHAVAN, No.14, BHIKAJJI CAM PLACE,
*NEw,DEI.I>II -- I10 O66. .. }3'E".£'I'I'IONERS
I (SR1 HARI KRIS}-£NA.S.HOLLA, ADV.)
I' Ami):
I SR1 V.R.PALANI.
S/O. P.V. RATHNAM.
AGED ABOUT 39 YRS.
WORKING AS DECO.
SUB ACCOUNKS OFFICE.
ISI\/iPLOYI:?I:?S PROVII)I$N'E' FUND
ORGANISATION, PEEENYA.
$9
BANGALORE W 560 001. ,..R££sP0N:)ra:N:"_' 1»
[BY SR1 ANAND M. SHOLAPURNIATH. AI)\1-z')
*$***
THIS WRIT PETITION 1s F11.1:i3
THE IMPUGNED ORDERX pT.3O,€;a,';'2003»"" DA"
NO889/2002 PASSED BY BANCALQRE "t3F;1§Ic1{,
BANGALORE, v1D:«:ANN1+::>;.A. = ~
THIS PETl'l'lOl\E COM1'i&;G}()N E:ORf'.:v.,¥I}3AR1NG THIS
DAY, SABHAHIT ,Jj;'. __1vLApE"TH}: .fj4'OL-I,_OW'i«NG:--
This petitit:3I'l1'l.;_i.S ~ respondents in Original
Applicat:;Qn _ the file of the Central
Administréitfwe “TI”i'[3_L’1V1″ilétl’, :_B’;;hgéll0re (hereinafter, referred to
as that ..*'[ribtir1atl’l.”tbelhgaggrieved by the order dated
.30/4)’–:”»«3lO03 \2ifherein,VV”t:he Tribtmal has set aside the order
app1iCat;io;:1. bearing N0.KB/BN / PF/
Aowigi /74,.g§:524’/2o03w03 dated 1 1 /17.10.2002
V{AImexu”re_A’3~’A~24′) and d1’1’ected the respondents~app1ican.t.
“her+..3_in””A_?«;0 continue the applicant. as ad hoc DEG against the
“‘t._,T1’egTu1ar vacancy 01’ till reg’u1arisat.ion of ad hoc: DECS is
_ Vfmade. whichever is later, with co11seqL1e11tia1 benefits and
ordered that the said Order he Cofllplied with within a
pe1*1’0d of one month from the date of receipt. of the order.
‘if
2. The respondent herein filed the Original
ApplicationNo.889/2002 before the Tribunal averring
was working as Lower Division Assistant and was. _
Data Entry Operator (hereinafter, referred to_-as.u
the Computer Cell of the respodndent organisation it-:by…order
dated 18/77/1994. The applicantotialified in Spgged and
correctness test required posted as DEC)
on a temporary basis recruitment
rules for the The applicant
was relieved frorii. the and repatriated to
Lower Division” 5di3ler1;;.Vp{Lf):C) __ by _’ order dated 14/] 1/2000.
Aggrieveddlhy’ the (jdrderftlie respondent herein filed
application Oxl5i.3t37′;’fi0O’l the file of the Tribunal and the
it’sa.n1e*~\;{ras”vdisposedlofmby order dated 4/10/2001 directing
liiihe ‘rherein to post the applicant as an ad hoc
DEO.__adgainstl regular vacancy and if necessary by reverting
one oi” tiheli-l,DCs who was junior to the applicant. but who
ldeen posted as DEC). During the pendency of the
.._Wlafojresaid O.A., the applicant. qualified in the departmental
:=exan1inai.io11 for promotion to the post oi’ Upper Division
Clerk {UDC] conducted by the respondent ~ organisation.
The first respondent asked the applicant to exercise his
option either t.o get; promoted as UDC on 21 regt.:lar basis or to
x.
sign
the applicant exercised a different option altogether. What
was contended by the applicant was to be reinstated ._’
on regular basis as he was appointed as DEG onlyion V’
basis till regularisation of services as»~he_had passed spleed
and competency test conducted by the ‘Cen~t.r’e and W
all, he had to be repatriated’iitogthe
holding on the date i.e., h.ebV\Ias:nAot_enti.t1ed
to be repatriated to the postdofp p
4. The Tribiniai after of the
learned coun_s-ei». by order dated
30/4/zoosvviie1.;1′::–iiéei~ order passed by the
Tribunalilvin quashing of the order dated
14/11/zoosp:fepzitraeiirfi’g:.’:}ii-iii’ as LDC was not correct and,
the Tribun.a1 has’~vpassed.l’ihe’ following orderg,
_ h ‘ihccordinalig, this application is dwposed of
V €.he_.respondents to post the applicant as
against the regular vacancy which
if necessary by reverting one of the
n j who is junior to the applicant’ but who has
” _ “been posted as ad hoc DEO. On such posting, the
it ‘applioanfs pay drawn while he had functioned
earlier as ad hoc DEO will be protected and
further increments will be effected taking into
account the earlier period he worked as ad hoc
DEO. These orders to be implemented within 60
‘fee
days from the date of receipt of a copy of if1.is’*t””–
order. No costs. ”
5. Admittedly, the applicantflwas qi-;1a’Eifi*etd.ti’i’ii the
departmental exami1’1a.tio31 for promo’ti.o1i:1’to.~the,post’
as noted in office order dated
applicant who was working as ad oasis to
discharge duties on pI”OvIi’~1.(‘$:i”‘}C’)l’}”_V:il’l UDHCH on long
term regular basis, therefozte, Ijfas directed to
exercise his iiirouidfdcoiitinue to hoid
the post of or}Vot’her\Arise on or before
5/3/ option once exercised
was to iinal.’ further observed that the
represe.ritatioh” claimant that he should be
it”postedtdaais-i.ADEQ in”t’h’e”‘regu1ar vacancy was rejected. The
observed that the applicant in his
1’e};’)1’ese1’1tatioi1_ *::to the first respondent requested for
xcor1tir1u~an’c,_e as DEO against regular Vacancy with his cadre
‘treated as UIDC as he had passed exammation. since
V’pe1§sor1s junior to him were workirlg as ad hoc D1330 were
“”‘.VCOI]t.iI}1,1€d as DEO, which was unfair to the applicant as
admittedly the atithoriiies had ignored the applicants plea to
c()ntimie him as ad hoc DEO on regular basis. in View of the
fiildiiig recorded by the “.l’ri.bu11ai in O/\.. 1.1/17.10.2002. the
W
Tribunal set aside the same and passed the impugned order.
Being aggrieved by the said order of the Trib&t§nal;Vll”thel V.
respondents have preferred this writ petition.
6. We have heard t.he learned leouiisellp appearin_gV’for
the petitioners and the respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the’v:peti.tionei’s_l_s1::’on1it.tledthat
the respondent. had already been tollthelpost of
UDC on long term order dated
12/4/2002 not an option
was given to’ he has opted to
eontinueas’vEir¢eladlre,3 “did~not report to lJDC and
therefore;-A’it’* is respondent now to contend
that he is ent.i_tle::l to as DEO on regular basis and
not in«fE3x~eeiedre post, A.
.8. lLe’a17rllie_£_i counsel appearing for the respondent;
st:i_)rn’i–t’tedl respondent has been working as DEO in
-E ~eald1*e””an.dlhe had passed the departmental eXaminat,ion
ll’ua.;1t}tiwjas promoted to the said post of UIDC on long term
._&i&’_1*egi1ll:1rlbasis vide office order dated 12/4/2002 and since he
not report to duty, the respondent. was directed to
exercise option and the option that was exercised by him
\»%”
_, ,,,
was to Continue him as DEC) in regular vacancy and
whereunder the order passed by the Tribunal is jt1stil’i_ed._i
9. We have given Careful Considerati.-orii ”
Contention of the learned counsel appearing jlor lthejpa’;’ties
and scrutinized the material on record»,
10. The material on rec’o_rd__would Clearly sihowiithat
the respondent herein iivho aipplieani’,_:V’befxo%i’e the
Tribunal was appointed He was
appointed as DEIO,_in iiiialisation of
recruitment heidilon 1 l / 1 I / 1999.
he did not P0511 0f mgular DB0
and skill test and were
suceessf1il”ir1″t.he aP130ml1ed 011 méiular DEG-
The material o”n._:reeord in/oiild also show that the petitioner
liiad p-assed the departrnental examination for promotion to
me’ :on 12/ 7/ 2001 and was declared successful
by ‘order 24/9/2001 and thereafter, he had been
‘§)i’OII101i(~f(l as UDC on 1-egular basis under the examination
However, since he did not report to the duty in the
proinotional post. the respondent. herein was Called
Ktipon to exercise option to whether he would joint. duty as
UEJC or eont.in1ie as i£X–eadre D130. Since the petitioner did
xx
W12″
12. Accordingly. the writ petition is disposed 0I’.j'{im’»th
the modification of the order passed by the
referred to above.
I
*I7IUS