BADRINATH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 10-6-1986 in T.A.Nos. 45 and 137 of 1985. By the said judgment, the said TAs. were dismissed. Initially, the appellant had filed Writ Petitions 1343 and 1344 of 1981 in the High Court of Madras and the said petitions were transferred to the Tribunal.

(2.) The appellant prayed in the writ petition, the quashing of the order dated 7-8-1980, passed by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of India (2nd respondent) rejecting his appeal against non-promotion to super-time scale and for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the Government of Tamil Nadu (1st respondent) and the Government of India, to promote the writ petitioner w.e.f. 16-1-77 to the super-time scale, being the date on which his junior was promoted to the said scale. Respondent No. 3 in the petition was Mr. V. Karthikeyan, IAS and respondent No. 4, Mr. C.V.R. Panikar, both former Chief Secretaries of Tamil Nadu. Mala fides were imputed to both of them. The impugned order of the Central Govt. dated 7-8-80 was an order rejecting the appellant's appeal dated 10-2-78 under Rule 16 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1963.

(3.) The following are the facts: The appellant was appointed in the Indian Administrative Service on 7-5-1957 and was fixed in the Junior scale on 7-5-57. He was promoted to the Senior scale w.e.f. 29-1-62. He was promoted to the Selection grade w.e.f. 1-11-72, although some of his juniors were promoted to the selection grade w.e.f. 15-5-1971. His name was considered initially for promotion in the super-time scale on 30-8-1976 along with his batchmates by a Committee consisting of Mr. V. Kathikeyan, Chief Secretary to Government (3rd respondent), Mr. S. Viswanathan, the then First Member, Board of Revenue and Mr. C.V.R. Panikar, the Second Secretary to Government. The Committee recommended his supercession on the ground that there were displinary cases pending. But the Advisor to the Government directed that the promotions may stop with 1957 list. At that time therefore, the appellant was not superseded.