Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 245 (UTT)

Keshav Ram v. Union Of India

2020-06-12

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2020
JUDGMENT Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - This Writ Petition is heard through Video Conferencing. 2. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for the following reliefs : "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to extend the date of superannuation 21.06.2020 to 21.06.2022. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the case of the petitioner in the tune of case of Praveen Kuma Vs. M/s Textiles and others decided on 26.05.2020 in which extension of 2 years has been considered. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within a stipulated period of 1 month till then maintain the status quo of functioning of the petitioner with the department. iv. Issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. v. To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner" 3. Respondent No.1 is represented through Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General. At the stage, when hearing of the Writ Petition was being conducted, respondent Nos.2 to 5 are not represented. But looking to the emergent contingency in the matter due to the date of superannuation of the petitioner, this Court is proposing to dispose of the Writ Petition, with the following directions : 4. Brief facts of the case as involved consideration in the present Writ Petition is that the petitioner has come up with the case before this Court, that the petitioner was initially appointed as casual labourer with the respondents in the year 1979, and later on, under the Temporary Status Scheme framed and enforced by the respondents, he was converted and granted Grade-III post as a temporary employee status under the Scheme w.e.f. 15th July, 2015. A controversy was raised pertaining to the enhancement of the age of superannuation, which at the relevant time, it was 55 years and later on, in pursuance to the communication, which has been placed on record, i.e. letter of the Director NSSD dated 30th April, 2020, which was issued in pursuance to the interim order dated 30.04.2014 passed by Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 18693 of 2014 and C.R.No. 151/2007 dated 16.11.2012, passed by CGIT, the age of superannuation was enhanced from 55 years to 58 years. 5. Later on, the controversy pertaining to further enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years of Class-III Employees came up for consideration before Central Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore, Karnataka and a judgment was rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal Karnataka in O.A. No. 170/00190-219/2016 dated 23rd October, 2018. The Central Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore had decided the matter pertaining to enhancement of age of superannuation and had issued directions to take a decision in light of Circular of 1993, with regard to the enhancement of the age from 58 years to 60 year. The guideline issued therein, was supposed to adhered to for considering of the aspect of enhancement of age of the superannuation and following directions were issued : "4. This stipulation of 2015 seems to us to be an artificial stipulation as the DoPT has already issued a circular in 1993 and if the applicants would come under the scheme then they will be eligible to be considered under the scheme issued by the Government and that scheme will have pre-eminence rather than the letter issued on 01.07.2015. The matter is also covered by Umadevi judgment as much before the judgment the applicants have completed the necessary stipulation in time to be eligible for regularization. But the respondents stipulate that they are ready to grant regularization under the scheme as mentioned on 10.09.1993. Therefore there is no need to further elucidate the matter at all. We will therefore remit the matter back to the respondents to do the needful under the scheme dated 10.09.1993 within 3 months next." 6. Later on, in accordance with the case of the petitioner, once again, an identical issue regarding enhancement of age from 58 years to 60 years was raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Chandigarh Bench in matters of Praveen Kumar. Later on, in accordance with the case of the petitioner, once again, an identical issue regarding enhancement of age from 58 years to 60 years was raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Chandigarh Bench in matters of Praveen Kumar. The Central Administrative Tribunal at Chandigarh Bench, while placing reliance of the judgment of 23rd October, 2018, as rendered in Sri Mudaliah and others Vs. Union of India, had disposed of the OA on 26.05.2020 with the direction that the representation submitted by the petitioner therein would be considered by the competent authority within 15 days in the light of the judgment of Sri Mudaliah (Supra) and be decided by a reasoned order. 7. The petitioner's case is that the relief sought in the present Writ Petition is covered by the aforesaid two pronouncements of Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore and Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh. 8. He contends that since he is also a recruit and appointed with Regional Silk Development Centre under the aegis of Central Silk Board and presently, he is posted at Bheemtal, Nainital, he submits that since as per his date of birth recorded in the service record, he is supposed to attain age of superannuation on 21th June, 2020, he seeks to derive the benefit of the aforesaid ratio of the two judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunals, referred above, for the purposes of extension of age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, for which, he has already preferred a representation before respondent No. 5 on 06.06.2020. 9. This Writ Petition is being disposed of with the direction that respondent No.4, the Director, Central Tasar Research and Training Institute, Central State Board, Pisca Nagar, Ranchi would consider the representation of the petitioner, as submitted on 06.06.2020, in the light of the judgment of Sri Mudaliah (Supra) and Praveen Kumar (Supra) and take a decision on the representation prior to the attainment of the date of his retirement, i.e. 21st June, 2020, subject to the condition that petitioner submits the certified copy of this order, on the competent authority. 10. It is directed that since respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are not represented before this Court, the petitioner would ensure the service of the certified copy of this order along with representation for its compliance on respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The respondent Nos. 10. It is directed that since respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are not represented before this Court, the petitioner would ensure the service of the certified copy of this order along with representation for its compliance on respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 will make all sincere efforts or whosoever Authority is competent to decide the representation, to take a decision on the same before 21st June, 2020, or at the most, within one month from the date of the production of certified copy of the order. If the decision is not taken prior to 21st June, 2020, i.e. the date when the petitioner would be attaining the age of superannuation, the status quo with regard to his services would be maintained only till the remaining period of one month, as directed above for taking decision on the representation to be furnished by the petitioner along with the certified copy of this order. It is made clear that this status quo order would not be treated to be extended beyond the period of one month and it is also made clear that the respondents / competent authority will decide the representation within the aforesaid period of one month at least. 11. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. 12. Let copy of the order be supplied to the counsel for the parties today itself on payment of usual charges.