Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 955 (PAT)

Mithilesh Kumar v. Union Of India

2002-09-02

R.N.PRASAD, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2002
Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in re. O.A. No. 470 of 1996 : Mithilesh Kumar vs. Union of India and others, dated 22 November 1999. 2. Fortunately, counsel for all the parties at the Bar have agreed that the matter is such which needs to be remitted to the Tribunal. In the circumstances, in effect, this order is by consent. 3. It will be necessary to recapitulate on what exactly the issues were before the Tribunal. In this regard, recourse may be had to paragraph - 5 where the Tribunal observed : "The question for our decision now is whether the applicant would also be entitled to revision of his y.o.a to 1966 like Sri K. V. Nambiar and Shri K. Ramachandran". The expression y.o.a stands for year of allotment. 4. After having noticed the controversies, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it did not have sufficient material before it so as to go into a detailed exercise for the purposes of considering whether the applicant Mithilesh Kumar, IAS, could be fitted into a particular year of allotment on the basis of comparing records of the other officers. Again, it would be appropriate for this Court to re-produce the order of the Tribunal in this regard. In paragraph - 8, the Tribunal observed: "We must also remember that Shri Nambiar and Shri Ramachandran suffered serious cuts in their salaries after their appointment to the I.As. by selection, and the two Benches of the Tribunal which decided their OAS devoted a good deal of their judgments to that aspect. Our applicant has not clearly demonstrated that he was also a sufferer in the matter of his pay fixation like Nambiar. On the other hand, as we have already said, he has not given clearly in the OA or the accompanying documents and supplementary papers what his pay scale was at the time of his selection, at least in such a manner as to enable us to place together the information immediately. Besides, it appears to us that the post he was holding in 1971 cannot be regarded as being much the same as I.A.S. senior time scale post in responsibility and even in the matter of pay scale. Besides, it appears to us that the post he was holding in 1971 cannot be regarded as being much the same as I.A.S. senior time scale post in responsibility and even in the matter of pay scale. Then, we do not find a sufficient reason for deciding that he can be equated with a direct recruit I.A.S. officer holding senior time-scale post in 1971. It follows that it cannot be assigned 1966 as his year of allotment in the I.A.S.". 5. This Court also was faced with the same situation qua Messrs K. Ramachandran, K. V. Nambiar and the petitioner Mithilesh Kumar. The court had asked for facts on record as to consider reliefs on the petition. Either way, this could be considered provided the record was made available to the High Court. 6. In so far as further material is concerned, on the order of the court, the petitioner provided it on an affidavit dated 29 August 2002. The record is in reference to the comparative chronology on which the three persons, that is to say, Messrs K. Ramachandran, K. V. Nambiar and Mithilesh Kumar (petitioner) had joined employment prior to joining State Service, the duration of State Service, salary drawn in 1971 or subsequently, the year when they were selected and appointed to the Administrative Service, the initial allotment or the year of allotment to the I.A.S. Cadre and the revised year of allotment. In so far as the last item is concerned, that is to say the revised year of allotment, there is another incumbent who had the advantage of a reexercise, whether done departmentally or upon directions consequent upon the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. This incumbent is Shri S. N. Dubey, IAS. 7. While the year of allotment of Sri S. N. Dubey, IAS, was being considered for revision, the petitioner Mithilesh Kumar was not a party to the proceedings. This is an additional ground that the petitioner Mithilesh Kumar should at least have an opportunity to have a say on the comparative merits with other incumbents who also lay their claims on seniority. 8. This is an additional ground that the petitioner Mithilesh Kumar should at least have an opportunity to have a say on the comparative merits with other incumbents who also lay their claims on seniority. 8. Some facts are drawn from the order of the Tribunal itself, the pleadings between the parties in O.A. 470 of 1996 and yet other facts have been given to this Court on an affidavit column-wise in reference to three officers Messrs K. Ramachandran, K. V. Nambiar and Mithilesh Kumar (petitioner). The facts as are contained in the column and referred to in paragraph - 2 of the affidavit are reproduced in this order: "That the case of the petitioner stands on a better pedestal than Sri K. Ramachandran and Sri K. V. Nambiyar, which will be apparent from the comparative chart placed at one place here under :- K. Ramachandran K. V. Nambiyar Petitioner (1) Pre State Service (joining date) X Sardar Patel Institute of Economics, Ahm-edabad as Economist. P1. 5.9.1963 to 31.10.68 Govt. of India undertaking. NCDC Ltd. P 72. (2) State Service 1951 As junior Engineer promoted as Assistant Engineer on 28.12.1955 P 52, 53 11.7.1972 - State Service under Govt. of Kerala as Economist P 51 1.11.1968 - Inducted into Class - I Service of Govt. of Bihar. (3) Salary drawn in 1971 Rs. 1050/- in July 1971 P 53 X On 1.1.1971 above Rs. 1,000/- P3 of reply to C/A (4) Salary drawn in 1972 Rs. 1050/- in July 1971 P 53 On 11.7.1972 Rs. 1,000/- fixed pay P 51 Rs. 1,100/- as per calculation of increments. P61 (5) Selected for IAS1981 (P, 65) 1981 (P 66) 1978 (P 66) (6) Appointed IAS 1982 (P 65) 1982 (P 66) 1979 (P 66) (7) Initial allotment of YOA 1975 (P 65) 1978 (P 66) 1974 (P 66) (8) Revised YOA 1966 (P 50) 1966 (P 52) 1971 (Annexure-9), P 10 of reply to C/A which subsequently was again challenged to 1974. 9 Comparatively upon examining the facts, the court is of the opinion that the petitioner Mithilesh Kumar is at least entitled to have his case re-considered, more so, as the Tribunal earlier felt that it did not have the details. The details have been furnished before the High Court. 9 Comparatively upon examining the facts, the court is of the opinion that the petitioner Mithilesh Kumar is at least entitled to have his case re-considered, more so, as the Tribunal earlier felt that it did not have the details. The details have been furnished before the High Court. As the Tribunal is the specially constituted forum where these claims or competing claims between the officers are to be examined, it would be best that the Tribunal re-examine the matter afresh. 10. This Court expresses no opinion on the merits or demerits of the officers as this will be an exercise which will be undertaken by the Tribunal afresh. 11. The petitioner Mithilesh Kumar will have an opportunity to move the Tribunal for examination of his case afresh. Should the Tribunal come to the conclusion that the claim of Mithilesh Kumar is likely to affect any other officer, such an officer would be entitled to notice so that he may have his/her case before the Tribunal. The court mentions this, because in the past rightly or wrongly, some incumbents were left out in presenting their case. 12. In the circumstances, as the material will be examined afresh, the orders of the tribunal dated 22.11.1999 & 28.9.2001, contained in Annexures 3 & 4 are quashed. 13. The High Court would request the Tribunal regard being had to the circumstances that as the petitioner Mithilesh Kumar would be retiring in November 2002, if it is possible, the matter may be taken for consideration for rendering a decision before November, 2002. 14. The petition succeeds. 15. There will be no order as to costs.