Union of India and Others v. S.A.S. Navaz

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2017/22ND ASHADHA, 1939 OP (CAT).No. 207 of 2017 (Z) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 951/2013 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 03-03-2016 ## PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:-: --------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 3. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN - 682 018. 4. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOM HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682 009. BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENE RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:-: -------------------------- S.A.S.NAVAZ, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (RETIRED), FLAT NO.10-D, SYLVAR HEIGHTS, CHILAVANNUR, KADAVANTHRA P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 020. R BY SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (CAT).No. 207 of 2017 (Z) ----------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.951 OF 2013 DATED 03.08.2013 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 14.01.2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 06.02.2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.951 OF 2013 DATED 03.03.2016 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. ## RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- nil KS. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & SHIRCY V., JJ.** ## **==============================** ## **OP(CAT)No. 207 of 2017** **============================== Dated this the 13[th] day of July,, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.** The challenge is against Ext.P4 verdict passed by the Tribunal on 3.3.2016 in O.A. No. 951 of 2013 filed by the respondent. The O.A. was filed with the following prayers: “Reliefs sought: In view of the facts and reasons stated above, the applicant prays for the following reliefs: i) to declare that the applicant is entitled to get promotion as Assistant Commissioner w.e.f.1.2.2003 and as Deputy Commissioner w.e.f.1.2.2007 i.e., the dates on which his junior was promoted. OPCAT 207/2017 2 ii) to direct the respondents to grant notional promotion to the applicant as Assistant Commissioner w.e.f.1.2.2003 and as Deputy Commissioner w.e.f.1.2.2007 ie. the dates on which his junior was promoted. iii) To direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances within a stipulated period. iv) Grant such other relief or reliefs that may be prayed for or that are found to be just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case. v) Grant cost of this O.A.” 2. The claim was sought to be resisted by the Department by filing reply statement. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal placing reliance on the verdict passed already under similar circumstances by way of Annexures A2 and A3 granted relief allowing the O.A. in the following terms. To avoid repetition of facts and figures, it will be worthwhile to extract paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 as reproduced below. “10. It was specifically stated by the applicant in OPCAT 207/2017 3 para 2 that Mr. Govindaraju who was a similarly situated officer approached the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal or getting promotion to the grade of Assistant Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise notionally w.e.f. 1.2.2003. The relief claimed in this O.A. is to grant promotion to the applicant a Assistant Commissioner w.e.f.1.2.2003 and as Deputy Commissioner w.e.f. 1.2.2007, the dates on which his junior was promoted. Admittedly his junior Mr. Govindaraju who appears at Sl.No.69 was granted promotion based on the order passed by the Tribunal. Annexure A5 is the order passed by the respondents in compliance with the order passed by the Tribunal in OA 602/2010. No plausible explanation has been offered by the respondents to deny the same benefit to the applicant. As per Annexure A5 Govindaraju was granted promotion to the grade of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Grade V in the IRS (C&CE) in the pay scale of Rs.10,000-325-15,200 revised notionally on adhoc basis w.e.f.1.2.2007. Mr. Govindaraju was also granted the same benefit based on the promotion granted and pay fixed in respect of another OPCAT 207/2017 4 employee who was junior to Govindaraju. Therefore, the applicant is legitimate in putting forth the claim that he is entitled to get promotion. Orders passed by the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in OA 16/2007 and another order passed by this Tribunal in OA 143/2013 also support the claim made by the applicant. 11. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant based on the orders of the Tribunal, respondents were directed to state whether arrears of salary based on notional promotion was paid to Mr. Govindaraju. In fact there is no specific denial of the claim made by the applicant to that effect. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the office note given to the counsel would show that the pay of Shri Govindaraju was revised and pensionary benefits were settled accordingly. It is further stated that as far as arrears of pay is concerned, it is still pending consideration. Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that so far as the arrears of pay is concerned, that may also be considered in the manner it is considered and ordered in the case of Govindaraju OPCAT 207/2017 5 mentioned above. 12. In the result this O.A.is allowed. Applicant shall be given notional promotion as Assistant Commissioner w.e.f.1.2.2003 and as Deputy Commissioner w.e.f.1.2.2007 and shall pay all consequential benefits including retirement benefits. Whether the applicant is entitled to get arrears of pay etc. shall also be considered in the line in which the claim of Shri Govindaraju is considered by the respondents. No order as to costs.” 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners at length. Despite the detailed hearing as above, the petitioners could not succeed in substantiating any tenable ground to call for interference with regard to the merits and also as to the course pursued by the Tribunal. That apart, it is also remains to the fact that though the verdict was passed by the Tribunal as early as on 3.3.2016, the petitioners approached this Court after about 1 ½ years. It is settled law that a jurisdiction vested OPCAT 207/2017 6 in this court is not to extend any relief to such person, who was simply sleeping on arm chair, unmindful with the rights and liberties, if any. The said principle as laid down by the Apex Court in **Rabindranath Bose & Others v. Union of India & Others AIR 1970 SC 470** is equally applicable to the petitioners/State as well. We find no merit to interfere with the verdict passed by the Tribunal. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** ## **Sd/-** **SHIRCY V. JUDGE** **ks.** True copy P.S. (Hr.Gr.)To Judge