Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition stands disposed of in view of the above terms
Judgment
The petitioner (Union of India) is aggrieved by an order dated 27.10.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No.297/2006. It appears that on 29.9.1995 approval of the President was conveyed for merging the Malaria Operational Field Research Scheme (MOFRS) with the National Malaria Eradication Programme (NMEP). As a consequence of the merger, 156 temporary post s under the Directorate of National Malaria Eradication Programme and Regional O ffices of Health and Family Welfare were created. The respondents who were working as Staff Car Drivers with the MOFRS were transf erred to the newly merged organization. The contention of the respondents was that they were entitled to the benefit of the Office Memorandum dated 15.2.2001 issued by the Department of Personnel, Pub lic Grievance and Pension. This Office Memorandum provided for a promotion schem e for Staff Car Drivers.
According to the petitioner, the respondents were not entitled to the benefit of the Office Memorandum dated 15.2.2001, but they were entitled to the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP). On the basis of this dispute, the respondents approached the Central Administrat ive Tribunal claiming the benefit of the Office Memorandum dated 15.2.2001 and i t seems that an alternative prayer (which was given up) was made to the effect t hat they should be given the benefit of the ACP Scheme. The petitioner resisted the original application and contended that the responde nts were only entitled to the benefit of the ACP Scheme and that the Office Memo randum dated 15.2.2001 was not applicable to them. The Tribunal appears to have mixed up both the issues in its order as it seems o n a reading of paragraphs 3 and 5 of the order passed by the Tribunal. Thereafte r, in paragraph 7 of its order, the Tribunal came to the conclusion, without giv ing any reason, that the respondents are entitled to the benefit of the Office M emorandum dated 15.2.2001 and that they should be given the benefits under that Office Memorandum.
Operative part
On a reading of the order of the Tribunal, it appears that th e rationale for this is that since the respondents were given the benefit of pen sionary services as indicated in the order dated 9.9.2004, they should be given the benefit of the Office Memorandum dated 15.2.2001. We cannot see any legal re asons for coming to this conclusion. In these circumstances, since there is no clear adjudication by the Tribunal on the issue whether the respondents are entitled to the benefit of the Office Memo randum dated 15.2.2001 and if so, the reasons therefor, we have no option but to set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 27.10.2009 and direct it to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law. Since both the parties are present before us, we direct them to appear before th e Tribunal on 28.3.2011, whereafter the Tribunal will pass appropriate orders fo r listing the matter for disposal. A copy of this order be sent to the Central Administrative Tribunal. The writ petition stands disposed of in view of the above terms.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.