Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.24024/2016(S-CAT)
BETWEEN :
UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.
THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI-110 001.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BANGALORE-I COMMISSIONERATE, C.R. BUILDING,
QUEEN’S ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
THE COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, SERVICE TAX COMMISSIONERATE, 16/1, SP COMPLEX,
LALBAGH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ANIYAN JOSEPH, ADVOCATE)
AND :
SRI. T. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O SRI. THIMMAPPA, INSPECTOR ANTI-EVASION, NOW ON DEPUTATION TO INTELLIGENCE OFFICE, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, BANASWADI BANGALORE-560 043.
... RESPONDENT
(SRI P.A.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD:10.03.2015 PASSED IN O.A. No.137/2012 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE C.A.T, BANGALORE BENCH VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present petition is directed against the order dated 10.03.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in
3 the order, has allowed the Original Application No.137/2012 and directed for grant of Grade Pay of Rs.4800 in Pay Band-2 scale with effect from 19.03.2008 and Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in Pay Band-2 scale with effect from 01.02.2010 to the applicant with all consequential benefits.
We have heard Mr.Aniyan Joseph, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Mr. P.A. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the respondent upon advance copy.
Upon hearing the learned Advocates appearing for both the sides, it appears that the matter is already covered by the earlier decision of this Court in W.P.No.16608/2016 disposed of on 23.04.2016.
We may record that this Court in the above referred order, observed thus: “The present petition is directed against order dated 10.03.2015 passed by the Central
4 Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) in O.A.No.197/2012, whereby the Tribunal for reasons recorded in its order has allowed the Original Application and appropriate directions are given.
We have heard Mr.M.Vasudeva Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.P.A.Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent upon advance copy.
Contention raised on behalf of the petitioners was that in so far as the respondent-original applicant is concerned, he was not a direct recruitee Inspector in the Income Tax Department but he was re- deployed as Inspector of Central Excise, since he was declared a surplus employee in the National Savings Organization.
It was submitted that therefore the benefit which is available to the direct recruitee Inspector could not have been claimed by the respondent- original applicant. The Tribunal has not considered the said aspects and hence this Court may consider in the present petition.
Had it been a case for making a distinction on that basis and the Tribunal having granted relief on such premise, the matter might have stood on a different footing for a different consideration. But the Tribunal in its impugned order has mentioned the name of two persons viz., Mr.K.Jaganmohan Rao, whose name was appearing at Sl.No.33 and another Mr.I.Subramanya Sarma, both of
5 whom were re-deployed like that of the original applicant and they were granted grade pay of Rs.5,400/- vide order dated 17.01.2008. The Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that the respondents i.e., petitioners herein, have not denied the said aspects in their reply statement or in the written arguments. The additional aspect is that so far as Mr.I.Subramanya Sarma is concerned, he was similarly situated fully on par with the original applicant because the said Mr.I.Subramanya Sharma was also re-deployed from National Saving Organisation to the present department. Under these circumstances, it was obligatory on the part of the petitioners to give the same treatment.
If the aforesaid aspects are considered, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any error in quashing the impugned order and extending the same benefit. Hence, no case is made out for interference.
Therefore the petition is dismissed.”
The fact situations are same in as much as in the above referred W.P. No.16608/2016, two persons, namely, Mr. K. Jaganmohan Rao and Mr. I. Subramanya Sarma, who were similarly situated as that of the respondent therein, were granted Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-. In the present case, one Mr. K.S. Balaprasenan, who also came from National
6 Savings Organization and joined the Department of Central Excise on re-deployment and who is similarly situated as that of the respondent herein, has got the benefit.
However, the learned counsel appearing for petitioners attempted to contend that in the case of Mr. K.S. Balaprasenan, the order for second upgradation and third upgradation is modified on 18.09.2015 and therefore, the basis taken by the Tribunal is no more in existence.
We are afraid such contention can be considered that too in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution upon a document, which did not exist at all at the time when the Tribunal passed the impugned order. The Tribunal passed the order on 10.03.2015, whereas the present documents, which are pressed in service at Annexures ‘G1’ and ‘G2’, are orders dated 18.09.2015 issued after a period of about six months from 10.03.2015 and therefore, the said attempt cannot be countenanced nor the contention can be accepted.
In view of the above and also as the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is similar to the order, which was subject matter of challenge in the aforesaid W.P. No.16608/2016 and the matter is already covered by the above referred decision of this Court, no interference is called for, to the order passed by the Tribunal.
Hence, the present petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
sma