Karnataka High Court
Sri.B.J. Dhananjaya vs The Secretary on 27 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17650-DB
WP No. 6240 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 6240 OF 2023 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.B.J. DHANANJAYA,
S/O B S JAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN INSTITUTE OF WOOD
SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560003.
2. SRI L MANJUNATHA,
S/O SRI T LANKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT C/O CHANDRAMMA FDA,
SIR M V LAYOUT, BENGALURU
Digitally signed
by BELUR WORKING AS TECHNICIAN
RANGADHAMA INSTITUTE OF WOOD SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY,
NANDINI
Location: HIGH 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560003.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAJAKUMAR M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST,
GOVT OF INDIA, PARIYAVARNA BHAVAN,
CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 10003.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17650-DB
WP No. 6240 of 2023
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,
INDIAN COUNCIL OF FOREST RESEARCH AND
EDUCATION, P O NEW FOREST, DEHRADUN-248006.
3. THE SECRETARY,
INDIAN COUNCIL OF FOREST RESEARCH AND
EDUCATION, P O NEW FOREST, DEHRADUN-248006.
4. THE DIRECTOR,
INSTITUTE OF WOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560018.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H SHANTHI BHUSHAN DSGI, FOR
MS.ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) CALL FOR
THE RECORD IN ORDER PASSED IN OA NO.20/2023 DATED
10/01/2023 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-A AND TO SET-ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE NO.63-19/2020-ICFRE (TSR)
24/02/20222 AT ANNEXURE-A14 IN OA, ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENTS AND FURTHER DECLARE THAT NEW TECHNICAL
SERVICE RULES-2013 AT ANNEXURE-A6 IN OA WITH
RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 18.12.2013 VIDE
NOTIFICATION NO.63-19/2016-ICFRE DATED 01/03/2017 AT
ANNEXURE-A5 IN OA, ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO PETITIONERS
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel for the writ
petitioners as well as the learned Deputy Solicitor General
NC: 2024:KHC:17650-DB
appearing for the respondents as instructed by the said
counsel.
2. The question raised in this writ petition is with
regard to the correctness of an order of the CAT,
Bangalore Bench rejecting O.A. filed by the petitioners on
the ground that the same is belated.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the petitioners are low paid
employees who had been appointed as Technical
Assistants in the office of the 4th respondent. It is stated
that by a notification dated 01.03.2017, new rules were
notified by which a post of Technician was created. It is
submitted that though the post of Technical Assistant and
Senior Technical Assistant were existing even in the new
rules, the appellants who have holding the post of
Technical Assistant under the old rules were downgraded
and demoted to the post of Technician which is a much
lower post which was not in existence in the old rules. It
is contended that the petitioners possessed the
NC: 2024:KHC:17650-DB
qualification for appointment to the post of Technical
Assistant which was graduation. It is submitted that they
ought to have been considered for promotion from the
post of Technical Assistant to Senior Technical Assistant
instead of which they were demoted to the post of
Technician.
4. The learned counsel contends that the
application had been filed challenging Annexure-A14 order
dated 24.02.2022 and therefore, contention that the
application was belated was factually incorrect. It is
submitted that since there was substantial injustice meted
out to the petitioners who are low paid employees and
who are qualified for the post of Technical Assistant, the
order of the CAT rejecting the application on the ground of
delay and laches was vitiated by hyper technicality and the
writ petition is therefore liable to be allowed and the
matter is liable to be remanded to the CAT for fresh
consideration.
NC: 2024:KHC:17650-DB
5. The learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing
for respondents submits that Annexure-A14 was an order
which rejected Annexure-A13 further representation
preferred by the writ petitioners on the ground that the
matter had already been considered and a reply had been
furnished by a letter dated 22.09.2017 to the applicant. It
is stated that absolutely no new reasons had been stated
in the order dated 24.02.2022 and that the application had
been filed without seeking condonation of delay in filing
the same. It is submitted that the endorsements dated
04.07.2017 and 22.09.2017 had addressed the issue and
given speaking replies to the petitioners. An earlier
application filed challenging those replies had been
considered by the CAT and had already been rejected on
account of delay. It is therefore contended that there is
absolutely no justification in seeking a further
consideration of the matter.
6. Learned Deputy Solicitor General would also
rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in D.C.S.
NC: 2024:KHC:17650-DB
Negi vs. Union of India and Others, (2018) 16 SCC 721
wherein, it is held that Section 21(1) and 21(2) of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short 'Act of 1985')
makes it clear that a Tribunal cannot admit an application
unless the same is made within the time specified in
Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21(1) or Section 21(2) or
an order is passed in terms of sub-section (3) for
entertaining the application after the prescribed period. A
judgment of co-equal Bench of this Court in W.P.
No.9142/2021 is also relied on. It is further submitted
that apart from the fact that the application was belated
and was not filed with any application for condonation of
delay, it is stated that the issue stands squarely covered
against the petitioners since the petitioners had earlier
filed O.A. No.400/2022 challenging the orders dated
04.07.2017 and 22.09.2017 and had suffered an order
dismissing M.A. No. 335/2022 filed for condonation of
delay of 1535 days in filing the application and
consequently disposal of application as well. It is
submitted that after the application filed challenging
NC: 2024:KHC:17650-DB
speaking orders had been dismissed, there would be
absolutely no logic in remanding the matter to the Tribunal
for consideration on merits.
7. Having considered the contentions advanced,
we notice that Section 21 of the Act of 1985 is quite clear
on the question of the time within which an O.A. has to be
filed. In the instant case, orders has been passed on
04.07.2017 and 22.09.2017 rejecting the request made by
the applicants. The challenge against those orders had
been upheld by the Tribunal by its order in M.A. 335/2022
and application No.400/2022. It appears that Annexure-
A13 had been filed by the petitioners on 19.02.2021.
However, by Annexure-A14 dated 24.02.2022, the said
application had been rejected stating that the reply had
been furnished to the applicant on 22.09.2017 and since
no new facts are raised in the representation, the
applicant needs to be informed only of the decision dated
22.09.2017. In view of the fact that O.A. filed against the
orders dated 04.07.2017 and 22.09.2017 stands dismissed
NC: 2024:KHC:17650-DB
on the ground of delay and since the present O.A. was
filed without any application for condonation of delay and
since the order impugned had only reiterated that the
matters stands covered by the speaking order dated
22.09.2017, we are of the opinion that there will be no
justification in allowing this writ petition and directing
reconsideration of a matter which already stands
concluded by earlier orders of the Tribunal the writ petition
fails.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
CHS
