N. Ravendran v. Deputy Commissioner Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Department of School Education & Literacy, Government of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1939 **OP (CAT).No. 1035 of 2012** AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 496/2010 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 08-08-2011 ## **PETITIONER/APPLICANT:** N.RAVEENDRAN VICE PRINCIPAL, JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA, VADAVATHOOR.P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV.SRI.S.VISHNU RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS): 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI, (HYDERABAD REGION), DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION & LITERACY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 1-1-10/3 SARDAR PATEL ROAD, SECUNDERABAD. 2. THE NAVODYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION & LITERACY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, A-28, KAILASH COLONY, NEW DELHI-110048. R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC, NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OP (CAT).No. 1035 of 2012** ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: |EXT.P1|:|TRUE COPY OF O.A.No.496/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER| |---|---|---| |||BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,| |||ERNAKULAM BENCH| |EXT.P2|:|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE| |||RESPONDENTS.| |EXT.P3|:|TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER.| |EXT.P4|:|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.8.2011 IN O.A.No.496/2010| |||OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,| |||ERNAKULAM BENCH.| |EXT.P5|:|TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION NO.3/12 FILED BEFORE| |||THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM| |||BENCH.| |EXT.P6|:|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN R.A.No.3/12 OF THE HON'BLE| |||CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.| |RESPONDENTS'|EXHIBITS:|| |EXT.R1(a)|:|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.r-16/02-NVS (Pers)/1091| |||DATED 24.11.2011| |EXT.R1(b)|:|TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST.| |EXT.R1(c)|:|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2010 PROMOTING| |||SHRI SRINIVAS RAO.| |EXT.R1(d)|:|TRUE COPY OF JOINING REPORT OF SHRI SRINIVAS RAO.| |EXT.R1(e)|:|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.9-76/NVS/(HR)/E.1/2012 /1356| |||DATED 29.06.2012.| |EXT.R1(f)|:|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PF.No.9-76(Estt)NVS(HR)/2012-| |||13/3643 DATED 26.09.2012.| |EXT.R1(g)|:|TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION ORDER F.No.4-7/NVS/GIS/F&A/R-| |||141/11-12/NIL DATED DECEMBER, 2011.| /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JJ.** .............................................................................. **O.P(CAT)No.1035 OF 2012** ......................................................................... **Dated this the 2[nd] March, 2018** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Devan Ramachandran, J.** The petitioner herein is the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in O.A.. 761 of 2017. The O.A. was filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the fact that he was denied promotion to the post of Principal of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Hyderabad Region, which is stated to be under the administrative control of the second respondent/Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti. 2. According to the petitioner, he was fully eligible for being promoted as Principal, but that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC for short), which considered his case along with others , found him ineligible on account of certain adverse entries in his Confidential Report recorded for a five year period prior to the consideration for promotion. The specific allegation of the petitioner is that the adverse entries in the Confidential Reports, which led to his credentials being rated below the Bench Mark, was not communicated to him and that **2** ## **O.P(CAT)No.1035 OF 2012** going by the ratio in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and others**_ [ **(2008) 8 SCC 725]** , it was not proper for the DPC to have taken note of such entries also. 3. The learned Tribunal, on a consideration of the facts and materials presented before it, took the view that the impugned orders viz., Annexures A8 and A9 as well as the recommendations of the DPC, held on 17.11.2009, to the extent to which it denied promotion to the petitioner, was not proper in law and after setting aside the same, the respondents herein were directed to hold a Review DPC to consider the applicant for promotion based on his 5 ACRs immediately preceding 17.11.2009. The Tribunal, however, made it clear that if the petitioner were to be found entitled for promotion, he would obtain all consequential benefits, but that he would not be eligible to claim arrears of pay and allowances. 4. The petitioner says that, this part of the order of the Tribunal is incorrect and he, therefore, preferred a Review Application No.3 of 2012 in the O.A. to have the directions denying him the arrears of pay and allowances, if he were found **3** ## **O.P(CAT)No.1035 OF 2012** fit to be promoted by the Review DPC, vacated or modified. The Tribunal, however, refused to interfere and rejected the Review Application, consequentially constraining the petitioner to file this Original Petition. 5. We have heard Mr. Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Millu Dandapani, the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 6. The sole issue in this Original Petition, as has been impelled before us by the petitioner, is whether the direction in the order of the learned Tribunal, dated 08.08.2011, and confirmed by it through its order in R.A.3 of 2012, to the extent to which it denies him the benefit of pay and allowances during the period he was denied the promotion, is legal or otherwise. We are told at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client, consequent to the decision of the Review DPC, was promoted as Prinicpal w.e.f. 30.05.2010 and that he retired from the service on 30.04.2011. Obviously, since the decision of the Review DPC came after he actually retired from service, he could not have been granted the benefit of actually working as a Principal, consequent to such decision, in the school. Therefore, **4** ## **O.P(CAT)No.1035 OF 2012** the only issue is whether, even though the petitioner had not actually worked as a Principal, he is entitled to get the benefit of pay and allowances for the period from 30.05.2010 being the date with effect from his promotion was ordered by the Review DPC to 30.04.2011, which is the date on which he in fact retired. 7. We notice that the learned Tribunal has, in its order, not specifically dealt with the issue as to why such pay and allowances have been declined. However, it is obvious from the tenor of the said order that it is because the petitioner had not actually worked during such period and, therefore, that any promotion that was offered to him, pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal, could only be treated as notional. On account of the fact that he had retired even as on the date of the order, the Tribunal decided that it would not be a fit and just case to order arrears of pay and allowances for that one year period. We do not see any justifiable cause or reason to interfere in the order of the Tribunal, especially because it is obvious that the petitioner had not worked for the said period, even though it is true that the denial of promotion to him, perhaps, was not on any account **5** ## **O.P(CAT)No.1035 OF 2012** of any reason attributable to him. However, as long as he had not in fact, worked as a Principal for that one year period, we are firmly of the view that it would not be justified to order to give him the pay and allowances for such period merely because his promotion was given effect to notionally from an anterior date on account of the directions of the learned Tribunal. 8. We are guided to this conclusion also because we are told at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the amount of DCRG paid to the petitioner has actually factored in all the benefits of notional fixation of pay and allowances in the post of Principal from the date on which such promotion was granted. In such circumstances, we do not see any compelling reason to interfere in any manner with the order of the learned Tribunal, impugned before us, and we consequentially dismiss this Original Petition. ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE** lk