Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 41 (GUJ)

Union of India v. Anil Kumar Solanki

2013-01-30

S.G.Shah, Vijay Manohar Sahai

body2013
Judgment Vijay Manohar Sahai, J.—We have heard Mr. Mr. Shakeel A. Qureshi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Counsel Ms. Rina Kamani, holding brief of Mr. P.H. Pathak, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This special Civil Application has been filed challenging the order dated 24th March, 2005 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad bench Ahmedabad in Original Application No. 701 of 2004. 3. The respondent Anil Kumar Solanki was working on the post of Senior Superintendent of Post Office. He was promoted on 25.09.2003 on ad-hoc basis from the post of ADPS-III to the post of SSRM which was extended on 26.03.2004. Thereafter, the respondent was reverted by the order dated 18th December 2004. 4. The respondent challenged the said reversal order dated 18th December 2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the Original Application and set aside the order terminating the ad-hoc agreement in favour of the respondent vide his order dated 24th March 2005. Paragraph No. 15,16 and 17 of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad bench Ahmedabad, is extracted below : “15. We find in the instance case that the applicant was initially promoted on adhoc basis vide order dated 29.05.2003. Subsequently, his adhoc promotion has been extended vide order dated 26.03.2004. thus he has continued on adhoc basis for more than one year. He has also been promoted on adhoc basis as a regular officer was not available. This the case of the applicant is covered by second paragraph of the circular referred to above. Thus the charge sheet for his decision as adhoc disciplinary proceedings in the case of S.M.Vadiator ought to have been issued in the higher post. The same has not been done in the instances case. 16. There this appears to be force in the argument of Learned Counsel for the applicant that he has been reverted only to facilitate serving of the charge sheet. 17. We, accordingly, quash and set aside the order terminating the adhoc agreement in favour of applicant. We however, give liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law. We further make it clear that this order shall not be taken to express any opinion on the applicant’s performance or his conduct in his discharge of disciplinary proceedings. The respondents are free to form their own opinion. The OA is disposed off accordingly. We however, give liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law. We further make it clear that this order shall not be taken to express any opinion on the applicant’s performance or his conduct in his discharge of disciplinary proceedings. The respondents are free to form their own opinion. The OA is disposed off accordingly. Nor order as to costs.” 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed before us an order dated 13th June 2008 which has been issued on 14th June 2008, copy of the order produced by the Counsel for the petitioners is taken on record. This shows that the respondent attained the age of 60 years on 30th June 2008 A/N and he has retired from the post of SSPOs Vadodara West Division. Since the respondent has retired and no action has been taken in pursuance of the order brought on record by the petitioners, though there is no stay order. In view of the fact that the respondent has retired on 30.06.2008, his post retiral benefits alongwith pension, be calculated and paid to him treating him an officer in the rank of Senior Superintendent of Post Office. Post retiral benefits alongwith pension should be calculated and paid to the respondent within a period of four months from today. 6. In view of the aforesaid observations Special Civil Application is finally disposed of. Rule made absolute to the above extent.