AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—These two writ petitions are directed against the order in Transfer Application No. 394/2010 dated 6.9.2013 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore.
M.R. Siddagangaiah-the employee filed writ petition in No. 25273/2005 before this Court seeking the following reliefs:
(a) WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction requiring the respondent employer to grant the benefit of appointment on superannuation terms/basis including making available the provident fund, gratuity and pension as being made available to other similarly situated employees/permanent employees or pass such other order or orders deem fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
(b) It is also prayed that this Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the orders bearing No. PERS/014/266 dated 30.12.2005 issued by the respondents in respect of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 produced at Annexures W1 and W2 respectively and pass such other order or orders as this Hon''ble Court deem fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
The matter was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore because of the subsequent notification issued by the Government of India under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 dated 9.3.2010. After transfer, it was numbered as Transfer Application No. 394/2010 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record has disposed of the Transfer Application as under:
In the instant case, while applicant No. 2 has been appointed in another Public Sector Undertaking, the fate of applicant No. 1 is not known. The fact remains that he had worked continuously from 1992 to 2005 though by periodical extensions of the contract period. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents should appropriately consider, if he has not been employed elsewhere, accommodating the applicant No. 1 in some capacity/project, wherever there is a need at present or which may arise in future, based on his qualifications and giving due weightage to the past experience in accordance with law. The terms of engagement are left to the respondent authorities to decide. It is expected that they would be fair and just in considering the matter.
Learned Counsel for the parties submit that the parties have agreed to settle the matter as under:
(i) The KIOCL Limited is willing to confer the designation of Manager on the applicant/M.R. Siddagangaiah. The earlier designation of Deputy Manager is now reclassified as Manager in the same pay scale, which the employee agrees to accept.
(ii) The KIOCL is willing to take into account notional increments from 14.1.1992 for the purpose of fixing basic pay.
(iii) The KIOCL will issue appointment on superannuation terms within four weeks from the date of this order.
(iv) The employee will not be entitled to seniority and backwages.
(v) It is also agreed that continuity of service will be given from 14.1.1992 for the purpose of terminal benefits i.e. Gratuity.
Both the parties have agreed for the aforesaid terms.
However, in so far as provident fund is concerned, the employee has no objection for deduction of his part of the past as well as future contribution towards provident fund from his future salary and to deposit the same with the competent authorities. The employer-KIOCL Limited is directed to deposit its part of the past contribution and continue to deposit the future contribution.
These writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the terms and conditions contained in paragraph 4 of the order and the direction contained in paragraph 6 of the order. The order of the Tribunal impugned herein stands modified accordingly.
In view of the disposal of the writ petitions as above, I.A. No. I/2014 in W.P. 56841/2013 does not survive for consideration. It is accordingly disposed of. No costs.