COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. S KRISHNAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts in brief in W.P.No.17380 of 2004 are as follows:-Respondent No.1 / applicant had joined service under the present petitioners initially as an Examiner and in course of time he was promoted as an Appraiser and ultimately further promoted as an Assistant Commissioner with effect from 15.9.1997. He took voluntary retirement from service with effect from 3.11.2000. THEreafter, he filed O.A.No.482 of 2003 claiming that the Government and the Department should grant -- Senior Time Scale . . . with all attendant and consequential benefits with effect from the date his juniors were given the Senior Time Scale in October 1999 . . .". THE main basis for making such a claim was on the footing that the seniority list of Appraisers was circulated only on 12.11.1997, wherein he was shown at Sl.No.881 and the Appraisers, who were juniors to him having been shown as 885, 914, 915, 917 and 948 onwards, had been given deemed promotion as Assistant Commissioner (Junior Time Scale) from October 1995 and Deputy Commissioner (Senior Time Scale) with effect from October, 1999. It was therefore claimed be him that, since he was senior to those persons, he was entitled to be promoted from the date when his juniors were promoted and the benefits which were made available to such juniors should have been extended to him. It was also highlighted by him that in similar cases such as O.A.No.757 of 2000 and O.A.No.1305 of 2001, the Administrative Tribunal had issued similar directions. 1.1 THE Union of India and the Department in their reply filed before the Tribunal took a stand that the applicant (present Respondent No.1) was promoted to the grade of Assistant Commissioner (JTS) on 8.9.1997 and he had taken voluntary retirement with effect from 3.11.2000. It was highlighted that for appointment as Assistant Commissioner (STS), one is required to complete four years of regular service in the grade of Assistant Commissioner (JTS) and since the applicant and completed only 3 years, 2 months and 15 days in the grade of Assistant Commissioner (JTS) before he had taken his voluntary retirement, the question of grant of Assistant Commissioner (STS) did not arise in his case.1.2 THE Tribunal negatived the contention of the Department by observing as follows :-- 4. It is not in dispute that a number of juniors to the applicant herein have been granted the STS. But it is not stated in the reply as to whether they had completed four years of service or not. However they have been granted the STS. THE fact that the respondents had given the STS to a number of juniors to the applicant from 1998 onwards is admitted. THErefore, it stands to reason that this benefit should also be given to the applicant as well. In this connection we also notice that the applicant had retired, though on voluntary retirement basis, effective from 3.11.2000 only. On the other hand the applicant-s juniors have been granted the STS effective from 4.1.1998 onwards, i.e. much before the retirement date of the applicant. THErefore the applicant in all fairness is entitled to get the same benefit, even though he has already retired from service.-1.3 Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the Department to consider the case of the applicant for the grant of Senior Time Scale with all consequential benefits with effect from the date when his immediate junior was given the Senior Time Scale. THE aforesaid direction is in question in W.P.No.17380 of 2004 filed by the Union of India and the Commissioner of Customs.

(2.) THE main contention raised in the writ petition is to the effect that as per the rules, an Assistant Commissioner in the Junior Time Scale can be promoted as Deputy Commissioner in Senior Time Scale only on completion of four years of regular service as Assistant Commissioner in Junior Time Scale and since the applicant (present Respondent No.1) had not completed such four years period as he had retired voluntarily in November, 2000, the direction given by the Tribunal is illegal.

(3.) IN the reply, the Department had taken the stand that the previous order of the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.757 of 2000 and 1305 of 2001 had been implemented on account of pendency of the Contempt Applications.