HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT VERDICT ON GRANT OF LEAVE TO CHQ OFFICE BEARERS

DEPARTMENT IS WILLING FOR A WORKING ARRANGEMENT – HIGH COURT VERDICT ON GRANT OF LEAVE TO CHQ OFFICE BEARERS.

The writ petition filed by the CHQ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of CAT dated 8.7.05 is disposed of with afavourable note.The respondents (department)submits that ours is the recognized association and whatever benefits for the union as a General Secretary would be extended and further WILLING TO CONSIDER THECASE OF THE UNION,AIPEDEU that is for grant of leave as sought for.

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  KARNATAKA  AT  BANGALORE

DATED  THIS  THE  4^TH DAY  OF  AUGUST,  2011

PRESENT

THE  HON'BLE  MR. JUSTICE K.L. MANJUNATH

AND

THE  HON'BLE  MR. JUSTICE H.S. KEMPANNA

WRIT  PETITION  NO. 24106/2005 (S-CAT)

BETWEEN:

1.      All India Postal Extra Departmental Employees Union

(Central Headquarters)

(Affiliated with National Federation of Postal Employees)

First Floor, Post Office Building, Padam Nagar, New Delhi

R/by the General Secretary

(for the present Sri S.S. Mahadevaiah)

2.      S.S. Mahadevaiah s/o Sadashivaiah,

39 years, working as Gramin Dak Sevak, Mail Deliverer,

Dooravaninagar Post Office,

Bangalore.                                                                         ..         PETITIONERS

(By Sri. Subba Rao, Senior Advocate for M/s Subbarao & Co.)

AND:

1.      The Union of India,

R/by the Secretary to Govt.,

Department of Posts,

Dak Bhavan,

New Delhi.

2.      The Deputy Director General

(Establishment),

Dept. of Posts, Dak Bhavan,

New Delhi.

3.      The Chief Post Master General

Karnataka Circle,

Bangalore.

4.      The Senior Superintendent of

Post Offices, Bangalore East

Sub-Division , Bangalore.

5.      The Asst. Superintendent of Post Office,

Bangalore East Sub-Division III,

Vimenapura PO., Bangalore.

6.      The Secretary,

Dept. of Personnel & Training,

Govt. of India,

New Delhi.                                                                        ..                     RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. C. Shashikanth, CGSC)

- - - -

This WE is failed under Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the order dated 8.7.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in OA Nos. 1010 & 1023/2003, a certified copy of which has been produced at Annexure-A as the said order suffers from errors which are apparent on the face of the record as the Central Administrative Tribunal did not consider the case of the petitioners in its proper perspective and allow the said applications filed by the petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal and grant the petitioners all the reliefs as prayed for in the said applications.

      This Petition is coming on for final hearing this day,  MANJUNATH  J. made the following.

O R D E R

      Petitioners are challenging the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore on their Application Nos.1010 & 1023/2003 which are rejected on 8.7.2005.

2.  Heard Sri. Subba Rao, learned senior advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Shashikanth, CGSC for the Respondents.

3.      First petitioner is an association which has been recognized by the Respondents. Second petitioner claims to be its General General Secretary. 2^nd petitioner as a General Secretary of the 1^st petitioner sought permission to work for the benefit of the 1^st petitioner as foreign service and sought permission to grant leave whenever he was on duty in connection with the office of the 1^st petitioner and the request of 2^ndpetitioner was not considered by the Respondents. Challenging the same, applications were filed before the tribunal. Tribunal after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that 2^nd petitioner is not entitled for grant of more than 180 days leave and in exceptional cases it can be extended as per Rules of the Respondents and the petition came to be dismissed on the ground that this tribunal cannot interfere with the policy decision of the Respondents. Challenging the same, present petition is filed.

4.      Counsel for the Respondents submits that since 1^st petitioner is a recognized association of the employees, whatever benefits 2^nd petitioner as a General Secretary of the 1^st petitioner would   be extended by the Respondents as per Rules prescribed by the Respondents and he further submits that when the Respondents are willing to consider the case of 2^nd petitioner, as per Rules of the Respondents, present petition is not maintainable. According to him, 2^nd petitioner is not entitled for leave of 180 days and in special circumstances it is for the respondents to extend leave and so far as the deputation of foreign service of 2^nd petitioner or any office bearers of the 1^stpetitioner are concerned, the same would be considered in accordance with Rules and instructions as on today to be issued by the Respondents from time to time.

5.      Placing the submissions of the consul for the Respondents, this petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

R/160811S

Sd/-

JUDGE