High Court Kerala High Court

V.A.Raghu Prasad vs Union Of India on 27 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
V.A.Raghu Prasad vs Union Of India on 27 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 1943 of 2009(S)


1. V.A.RAGHU PRASAD, ASSISTANT,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE JOINT SECRETARY (CPV) AND CHIEF

3. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER

4. SHRI GHANSHYAM KANSRA, SUPERINTENDENT

5. SMT. MAMTA KOTIA, SUPERINTENDENT

6. SMT. ANIL GROVER, SUPERINTENDENT

7. SMT. GURJEET KAUR, SUPERINTENDENT

8. SHRI N.C. MITRA, SUPERINTENDENT

9. SHRI N.K.KAUSHIK, SUPERINTENDENT

10. SMT. K.K.MANI,

11. SHRI KRISHAN CHANDER

12. SMT. KIRAN MITTAL,

13. SHRI.RAJINDER PAL,

14. SHRI N.K.VERMA,

15. SHRI MADAN S RAWAT, SUPERINTENDET

16. SMT. SASHI B SADHANA, SUPERINTENDENT,

17. SHRI RAJINDER PRASAD,  SUPERINTENDENT,

18. SHRI K.VASANTH KUMAR,

19. SHRI K.S. SAPEHIA,

20. SHRI V.K.SHARMA,

21. SHRI P.PONNAIYAN,

22. SHRI B BOOPATHY,

23. SHRI MALIK KHAN,

24. SHRI BUDHI SAGAR,

25. SHRI TULSI DAS,

26. SHRI SOHAN LALA KAHLAT

27. SHRI V.SEKAR,

28. SMT. S.VIJAYA LAKSHMI,

29. SHRI T.N.JAYARAM,

30. SHRI A.G.NALAWADE

31. SHRI RAJ SINGH,

32. SHRI M.NARAYANAN,

33. SMT KSHAMA SARIN,

34. SMT. ASHA BHATNAGAR,

35. SHRI R.D. SHARMA

36. SMT.KAMLESH SETH,

37. SHRI DAYA KRISHNAN

38. SHRI SUSHIL BHALLA

39. SHRI,J.K.SRIVASTAVA,

40. SHRI SUDHAKAR RASTOGI

41. SHRI SARAD KUMAR,

42. SMT GEETA NA BHAGAT,

43. SHRI K.S. SHAH,

44. SHRI A.A. PATEL

45. SHRI M.P.JAISWAL, SUPERINTENDENT

46. SRI. V.R. GANDHI,

47. SRI.P.K. GHOSH,

48. SMT. PRABHA NAYYAR,

49. SHRI.S. KUMARA VELU,

50. SMT.U.K. SANTHA,

51. SHRI.M.L. RAWAT,

52. SHRI.S. SADANAND BHAT,

53. SHRI.P.K. ASHOK KUMAR,

54. SMT. J. ALIVELU,

55. KUM. N.J. MARY,

56. SMT. EALIAMMA JULIUS,

57. SRI.M. RAJAPPAN,

58. SHRI.V.P. JOY,

59. SRI.MOTLING,

60. SMT. URMILA SINGH,

61. SHRI.D.R. CHOUDHARY,

62. SMT.I.S. D' MELLOW, SUPERINTENDENT,

63. SHRI.V. KUMARAJ, ASSISTANT REGIONAL

64. SRI.R.S.RAWAT,

65. SRI.P.R. PARMAR, ASSISTANT PASSPORT

66. SHRI. SITARAM VERMA,

67. SHRI. A.K. BHATIA,

68. SHRI.N.C. BISHT, ASSISTANT,

69. SHRI.N.A. PAREKH, ASSISTANT,

70. SMT.N. SATHIAMMA,

71. SHRI.K. MICLE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :27/01/2009

 O R D E R
                       K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &

                       K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

                    -----------------------------------------

                      W.P.(C) NO. 1943 OF 2009-S

                    -----------------------------------------

                         Dated 27th January, 2009.

                                JUDGMENT

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The petitioner is an Assistant, working in the Regional Passport

Office, Kochi. He commenced service as a Daily Rated Clerk with effect

from 1.7.1977. He was regularized as Lower Division Clerk with effect

from 3.7.1980. The said date of regularization was pre-dated as 8.12.1978.

On finding that some of his juniors were granted regularization with effect

from the date of their initial engagement, the petitioner filed a

representation in 2006, claiming that his regularization be pre-dated with

effect from 1.7.1977. By Annexure-A7 order, the said prayer was granted.

But, he was not granted consequential benefits. Therefore, O.A.No.49/2008

was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench.

The said O.A was allowed by the Tribunal by Ext.P5 order dated

27.8.2008. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:

“In view of the above, the OA is allowed. It is declared

WPC 1943/09 2

that regularization of the applicant’s service in the grade of
LDC shall be with effect from 1.7.1977 i.e., the date of his
initial engagement and he is entitled to consequential seniority.
However, as in the other case, he would be entitled to notional
fixation of pay without any monetary benefits. On the basis of
his revised seniority, if the applicant is entitled to higher
promotion, the same be considered and granted from the date
his immediate junior was promoted and the seniority in
respective posts (UDC and Assistant as the case may be)
rescheduled. His entitlement to monetary benefit on account of
the advancement of the seniority would be reckoned only
prospectively after the review DPC takes place and his
promotion date altered. In so far as promotion to the higher
grade of Superintendent is concerned, his seniority in the grade
of Assistant as arrived at now would be considered. As the
drill involves review of seniority right from LDC and also
review of promotion to the post of UDC and Assistants,
sufficient time would be required for the same, as the revised
seniority has to be prepared after due notice to the affected
parties. Hence, a period of 8 months is granted to implement
this order. Again, it is made clear that in case the time granted
falls short, respondents may move the Tribunal for further
extension, before the expiry of the time allowed, by way of a
Misc. Application, reflecting therein the extent of action taken,
by narrating chronological sequence of events and justifying
the extent of further time sought. Any inordinate delay in
initiation of action etc., would not be a justification in seeking
further extension of time.”

The petitioner/applicant has been granted all possible reliefs, except arrears

of salary. Claiming that he should be paid arrears of salary also, this Writ

Petition is filed.

2. We notice that normally, arrears of pay and allowances are granted

on retrospective promotion, if only the Tribunal finds that the person

WPC 1943/09 3

concerned has been denied promotion/regularization in time without any

justification. In all other cases, arrears are granted with effect from the date

of the order and not from the date the order is given notional effect. In this

case, we notice that there is no wilful omission from the part of the

respondents to regularize or promote the petitioner/applicant. He claimed

the relief of retrospective regularization from 1.7.1977, only in 2006.

Therefore, we feel that the Tribunal has rightly declined the benefit of back

wages. No ground has been made out, warranting interference with the

order of the Tribunal at the instance of the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the

Writ Petition is dismissed.

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.

Nm/