IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO.44910 OF 2014 [S-CAT] BETWEEN:
M G PRAKASH SON OF LATE GOPAL RAO, AGED 55 YEARS, WORKING AS DRIVER GRADE-I NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF UNANI MEDICINE, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, KOTTIGEPALYA, BENGALURU-560 091.
RESIDING AT NO. 836/6, 9TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, GOKULA 1ST STAGE, 2ND PHASE, K.N. EXTENSION, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU-560 022. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH, B-BLOCK, GPO COMPLEX, INA, NEW DELHI-110 023.
2. THE DIRECTOR NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF UNANI MEDICINE, KOTTIGEPALYA, MAGADI MAINROAD BENGALURU-560 091. … RESPONDENTS (BY Sri. R. VEERENDRA SHARMA, CGC FOR R1; Sri. VISHNU BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED.26.8.2014, PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN OA.NO.68 OF 2013, VIDE ANNEXURE-A ANDETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH. J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Aggrieved by the order dated 26.08.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.68 of 2013 dismissing the application, the present petition is filed.
2. The petitioner contends that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and calls for interference. The Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the application on delay. That there is no delay in approaching the Tribunal. That even on merits of the case, interference is called for.
3. The same is disputed by the respondents’ counsel.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this petition.
5. The contention of the petitioner is that he had earlier subscribed to the General Provident Fund Scheme. That subsequently, he was shifted to the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme without his consent. That the same being without his consent, the respondents could not have shifted him to the other Scheme. However, on considering the contention of the petitioner, it can be seen that the respondents had intimated to him with regard to the change of Scheme by the communication dated 24.09.2003, which was produced as Annexure-A3. Therein, they have culled out the details with regard to the details of payments, balance, etc, which the petitioner has to comply. It is countered by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner is an illiterate and does not know how to read and write. We do not find this as a sufficient cause. Having received the communication in the year 2003, the petition is filed in the year 2013 i.e., 10 years later. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that the cause of action arose only on 14.03.2011 was not accepted by the Tribunal. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. There has been a huge delay in approaching the Tribunal.
6. Even on merits, we do not find any infraction or illegality in the impugned order that calls for interference. The petitioner having been shifted from one Scheme to another, which he was aware and also accepted to pay the balance of it for the next ten years, it would be inappropriate for the petitioner to retract later from the same. Hence, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE ln.