IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.10.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN WRIT PETITION NO.15714 OF 2008 N. Soundiramourty S/o. Nagalingam Chetty .. Petitioner Vs. 1. Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department, Pondicherry. 2. The Director of Agriculture, Pondicherry. 3. The Deputy Director of Accounts and Treasuries (Pension), Pondicherry. 4. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, rep. by its Registrar, Chennai. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of 4th respondent relating to the impugned order dated 20.03.2008 in O.A.No.186 of 2008 and quash the same and consequently allow the Original Application No.186 of 2008, on the file of the 4th respondent. For Petitioner : Mr. Saikrishnan For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr. Syed Mustafa A.G.P., - - - O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.K. MISRA, J) Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.3.2008, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing O.A.No.186 of 2008. 2. The petitioner had joined services under the respondents in the Department of Agriculture with effect from 17.5.1965 as Research Assistant. Subsequently, such post was redesignated as Agricultural Officer. In course of time, he was promoted as Deputy Director of Agriculture. At that time, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and subsequently he was dismissed from service by order dated 5.2.1988. The petitioner filed O.A.No.601 of 1988, which was allowed by order dated 6.9.1989, and the matter was remanded to the Department for conducting fresh enquiry. Thereafter, a fresh order was passed on 15.2.1990 reverting the petitioner as an Agricultural Officer. Such order was challenged in O.A.No.258 of 1990. Such Original Application was allowed by order dated 7.12.1990 and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal by directing that a copy of the enquiry report should be furnished. Thereafter, the Department by order dated 27.5.1991 imposed a punishment of reduction in rank for a period of three years, which was challenged in O.A.No.644 of 1991. However, such Original Application was dismissed by order dated 6.3.1992 and, thereafter, on completion of period of punishment, the petitioner was allowed to resume duty as Deputy Director of Agriculture, by order dated 3.5.1996. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner applied for leave and proceeded to London to visit his son and after return from London he met with a severe road accident resulting in some head injury. Because of such injury, the petitioner was intermittently becoming unconscious and losing memory and had to go to London for the protracted treatment. Thereafter he had reported for duty. In the meantime a chargememo, dated 19.8.1999, had been issued for the absence of the petitioner and enquiry was pending. Subsequently, the petitioner retired with effect from 30.9.2003, on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner, while he was allowed to resume duty as the Deputy Director of Agriculture, was being paid the minimum scale of pay and no annual increments had been sanctioned. The petitioner was overlooked for promotion to the next higher post of Joint Director of Agriculture and the further higher post of Additional Director of Agriculture. Even though it is not indicated at the time of retirement that disciplinary proceedings has to be continued, subsequently, by order dated 10.5.2005, the departmental authorities closed such proceedings. The question of promotion, which had been kept in a sealed cover, was never considered inspite of several representations of the writ petitioner and no promotion was granted nor any backwages paid. After retirement, the petitioner was being paid provisional pension. On the basis of such assertions, the petitioner had prayed before the Tribunal for the following reliefs :- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "a) Direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to grant notional promotion to the applicant as Joint Director of Agriculture and Additional Director of Agriculture with effect from the date of promotion of his juniors and consequently fix his last drawn pay in the appropriate stage as on date of his superannuation i.e. 30.9.2003. b) Direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to disburse all the retiral benefits due to the applicant and fix his pension. c) Direct the Respondents to pay all the arrears of salary, backwages, pensionary arrears and all other monetary benefits to the applicant. d) Direct the Respondents to pay 18% interest on all the amounts due and payable to the applicant from the dates on which the amounts became due till the date of disbursement." 3. The Tribunal disposed of such Original Application by observing as follows :- "Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. 2. We see no grounds to admit the O.A. 3. However, liberty is given to the applicant to file necessary representation before the respondents claiming pensionary benefits and the respondents shall consider the same. 4. With the said observation the O.A. is dismissed." This order of the Tribunal is in question in the present writ petition. 4. In normal course, we would have remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and, more particularly keeping in view the fact that the matter is pending since long, it would be more appropriate to dispose of the matter finally in order to avoid any further controversy in the matter. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was allowed to superannuate on attaining the age of retirement and at that stage no specific order was passed continuing the service of the petitioner for the purpose of completing the departmental proceedings. Be that as it may, at any rate, the departmental proceeding was closed without coming to any conclusion that in fact the petitioner was guilty of the charges. It is also not in dispute that because of the pendency of the proceedings, the question of promotion had been kept https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in a sealed cover. Under such circumstances, we feel interest of justice would be served by issuing the following directions :- (i) The normal scale of pay payable to the petitioner in the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture should be finalised and, if any amount is payable on that score, such amount may be paid. (ii) The respondents shall open the sealed cover for the purpose of considering the question of grant of promotion to the petitioner. If it is found that the petitioner was to be promoted, notional promotion may be given to him without payment of any actual backwages in the promotional scale. However, the notional pay should be fixed for the purpose of payment of pension which shall be calculated on the basis of such notional pay in the promotional post, if it is found that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted. 6. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. The aforesaid directions should be complied with within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar dpk To 1. The Secretary to Government, Union of India, Agriculture Department, Pondicherry. 2. The Director of Agriculture,Pondicherry. 3. The Deputy Director of Accounts and Treasuries (Pension), Pondicherry. 4. The Registrar The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai. 1 cc To The Special Government Pleader for Pondicherry, SR.No.57892 WP.NO.15714/2008 PA(CO) SRA(13/03/2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/