K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.
The name of the petitioner was included for appointment to the post of Director (Information and Communication). However, he was not appointed. The petitioner, after working as Deputy Commissioner (Epidemiology) retired from service on 30 November 1997. Thereafter, the petitioner made a claim to fix notionally his last drawn pay, as if he was holding the post of Director on the date of superannuation. The request was not considered by the Central Government. The petitioner, therefore, filed Original Application in O.A.No.86 of 2012. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application by order dated 3 June 2015. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the name of the petitioner was included in the select list for appointment to the post of Director. According to the learned counsel, the case of the petitioner was not placed before the Appointing Committee and as such, he was denied appointment to the post of Director. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was qualified for appointment to the post of Director, he should be given all the service benefits.
3. We have also heard the learned counsel for the first respondent.
4. There is no dispute that the name of the petitioner was included as a candidate for appointment to the post of Director. However, the fact remains that no such appointment order was given. The petitioner retired as Deputy Commissioner (Epidemiology) on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner has no case that on the strength of the order including his name in the select list, he worked in the post of Director till his superannuation. The petitioner retired from service on 30 November 1997, while he was functioning as Deputy Director. There is no question of granting the petitioner retirement benefits, as if he worked as Director and retired during the currency of such appointment. The Tribunal was therefore correct in dismissing the Original Application.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government of India is favourably considering the request made by the petitioner and as such, liberty should be given to him to take up the issue with the Ministry. We make it clear that our finding that the Tribunal was correct in dismissing the application would not stand in the way of the Central Government considering the case of the petitioner sympathetically. In short, the order dismissing the Original Application or our finding that the Tribunal was correct in negativing the request made by the petitioner would not stand in the way of considering the issue once again by the Central Government or giving appropriate relief to him.
6. The writ petition is dismissed with the above clarification. No costs.
(K.K.SASIDHARAN.,J.) (M.V.MURALIDARAN.,J.) 15 March 2017 svki To
1. The Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Union of India Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Registrar, The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai - 600 104.
K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.
and M.V.MURALIDARAN,J.
(svki)
W.P.No.1022 of 2016
15.03.2017
http://www.judis.nic.in