Karnataka High Court
Union Of India vs Smt Sudhamani on 6 May, 2022
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar, M G Uma
W.P No.53784/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA
WRIT PETITION No.53784 OF 2016 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN :
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SHASTRI BHAVAN
NEW DELHI-110 001
2. THE DIRECTOR (NRM)
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
& CO-OPERATION
KRISHI BHAVAN
NEW DELHI-110 012
3. THE CHIEF SOIL SURVEY OFFICER
SOIL AND LAND USE SURVEY OF INDIA
IARI BUILDING PUSA
NEW DELHI-110 012
4. SOIL SURVEY OFFICER
O/O THE SOIL SURVEY OFFICER
ALL INDIA SOIL AND
LAND USE SURVEY
SY NO.207, KODIGEHALLI
VIDYARANYAPURA POST
BANGALORE-560 097 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI. M.N. KUMAR, CGC)
W.P No.53784/2016
2
AND :
R. BALAHANUMAIAH
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RETIRED LAB ATTENDANT
SOIL AND LAND USE SURVEY
OF INDIA, R/O KUKKANAHALLI
DASANPURA HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
GOLAHALLAI POST
BANGALORE-560 097 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI. H. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH ANNEXURE-A ORDER DTD 29.06.2016 PASSED BY
THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALROE
BENCH.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 31.03.2022 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH
KUMAR. J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
W.P No.53784/2016
3
ORDER
Union of India has presented this writ petition
challenging the order dated June 29, 2016 passed
by the CAT1 allowing O.A. No.170/00128/2015.
2. Heard Shri. M.N. Kumar, learned CGC for
petitioners and Shri. H.Basavaraju, learned
Advocate for respondent.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on August 10,
1973 the respondent was appointed as a Khalasi in
the Office of Soil Survey Officer, Bengaluru. His
probationary period was declared and he was made
permanent on January 29, 1974. Thereafter, he
applied through the Employment Exchange for the
post of Laboratory Assistant. He was appointed for
the said post on temporary basis with effect from
January 22, 1982 in the pay scale of Rs.200-3-206-
4-234-EB-4-250.
Central Administrative Tribunal
W.P No.53784/2016
4. Respondent was granted two financial
upgradations as per MACP2 after completion of 20
years of service. He retired from service in the year
2009. He submitted a representation dated May 6,
2011 requesting for grant of third MACP on the
ground that he was appointed as Khalasi in the year
1973 and the same was rejected. Respondent
approached the CAT and by the impugned order,
the CAT has allowed the O.A. and directed to grant
the benefit within two months. Hence, this writ
petition.
5. Shri. M.N. Kumar, learned CGC for the
petitioners submitted that the CAT has erroneously
allowed the O.A. by placing reliance on various
authorities mentioned in the order. He submitted
that the ratio of those authorities are not applicable
because, respondent has joined as Laboratory
Modified Assured Career Progression
W.P No.53784/2016
Assistant through Employment Exchange in 1982.
His services as Khalasi cannot be considered for
granting the financial upgradation.
6. Shri. Basavaraju, for the respondent
argued in support of the impugned order.
7. We have carefully considered rival
contentions and perused the records.
8. The point involved in this case is,
whether the service rendered by the respondent as
a Khalasi can be considered for granting third
MACP?.
9. Undisputed facts of the case are,
petitioner was initially appointed in 1973 as a
Khalasi. Later, he applied for the post of Laboratory
Assistant through Employment Exchange and he
was appointed on January 22, 1982. Thus, the
respondent applied through the Employment
W.P No.53784/2016
Exchange for the post of Laboratory Assistant
without reference to his service as Khalasi.
10. CAT has relied upon the authorities in
which the employees came into different
Departments on transfer. In contradistinction,
respondent's appointment as Laboratory Assistant
is with effect from January 22, 1982. He would be
entitled for MACP at the end of 10, 20 and 30 years
reckoned from 1982. He has been given two
financial upgradations. Admittedly, he has retired in
2009 before he could complete 30 years of service.
Therefore, he is not entitled for the third financial
upgradation. Mr. Kumar has placed reliance on a
Division Bench Judgment of this Court in
W.P. No.45466/2013 (Union of India and others Vs.
Shri. Raghavendra) decided on April 23, 2014 and
contended that this Court has held that the service
of employee on adhoc basis cannot be considered
W.P No.53784/2016
for grant of benefit under ACP3 Scheme and we are
in respectful agreement with the same.
11. In view of the above, this writ petition
merits consideration. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(a) Writ petition is allowed.
(b) Order dated June 29, 2016 in O.A.
No.170/00128/2015 is quashed and the O.A. is
dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SPS
Assured Career Progression Scheme
