IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 10252 of 2007(S) -------------------------- OA.513/2005 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA- REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER(ADM.), EMPLOYEE'S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEE'S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (ADMN), EMPLOYEE'S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI NHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. 5. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEE'S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. V.A.MATHEW, UDC(NOW CONVERTED TO SOCIAL SECURITY ASSISTANT), EMPLOYEE'S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION(EPPO), SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI- 682 017. WPC.10252/07 2. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. ADV. SRI.VELLAYANI SUNDARARAJU FOR R1 SMT.P.MEENAKUMARI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.10252/07 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.4.2006 IN O.A.NO.43/2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.7.2006 IN W.P.(C).NO.17073/2006 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN O.A.NO.513/2005 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN O.A.NO.513/2005. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDNET DATED 12.1.2007 IN O.A.NO.513/2005. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.10252 OF 2007 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. This writ petition by the Department is against a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The 1st respondent was the applicant in the original application before the Tribunal. Working as an Upper Division Clerk in the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, he had two avenues for promotion. One is as Assistant and the other is as UDC(Selection Grade). Two DPCs were conducted on 14.9.1999 and 4.4.2000, one for UDC(SG) and another for Assistant. The applicant's case was considered in the selection of UDC(SG). However, the result was kept in a sealed cover for want of vigilance clearance. The Department did not consider his case for the post of Assistant on the premise that his case for UDC(SG) was being held up in a sealed cover procedure. Finally, the Tribunal held that in so far as the WPC.10252/07 2 disciplinary proceedings, which resulted in the sealed cover procedure being adopted for the category of UDC(SG) are concerned, the ultimate authority had cleared the officer of all the charges setting aside the penalty advice and the appellate order. In so far as the second charge sheet issued in January, 2000 was concerned, the Tribunal had passed an interlocutory order requiring the Department to finish the disciplinary proceedings in a time bound manner. In the wake of the Department's non-compliance of that direction, the Tribunal refused to enlarge the time further. Accordingly, the second disciplinary proceedings also lapsed. As a consequence of the aforesaid situation, the Tribunal, in the impugned final order, held that the result of the consideration of the case of the applicant for UDC(SG) should be taken up and made known to him, now that the disciplinary proceedings no more survives. In so far as the applicant's claim for promotion to the category of Assistant is concerned, it was ordered that since his case was not considered, that too, in the guise of pending disciplinary proceedings, there should be a review DPC held in that regard and the applicant, if found fit and suitable, should be given WPC.10252/07 3 promotion with effect from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted. We do not find any illegality in the aforesaid approach of the Tribunal. Writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp WPC.10252/07 4