Sunil Kumar vs. Union of India & National Productivity Council
In this case which was before the Central Administrative Tribunal, The applicant named Sunil Kumar S/O S/o Late Shri Ram Prit Ram, aged 57 Years and he has lodged the complaint against National Productivity Council.
Sunil Kumar joined the service of National Productivity Council (NPC), in the year 1990, as a Trainee. He was later appointed as Assistant Director on 14.11.1992 and was promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Junior) and Deputy Director Grade-II in 1997 and 2015 respectively. Also he was further promoted to the Director Grade-I on 06.06.2019. He will be next promoted to the post of the Deputy Director General but before that the appointing authority of the applicant that is the National Productivity Council passed an order dated 04.01.2021, retiring him before the date of his superannuation by exercising the power under Fundamental Rule 56 (j).
National Productivity Council (NPC) is a national level autonomous organization under the administrative control of the Department to promote productivity culture in India. Established as a registered society in 1958 by the Government of India, it is a tri-partite non-profit organization with equal representation from the government, employers and workers’ organizations, apart from technical and professional institutions including members from local productivity councils and chamber of commerce on its Governing Body.
This case stands under the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal because of the fact that the Central Administrative Tribunal had been established under Article 323 - A of the Constitution for adjudication of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or other authorities under the control of the Government.
This case was presented before the two judge bench of Justice L. Narasimha Reddy & Tarun Shridhar.
About the Fundamental Rule 56(j): The provisions of Fundamental Rules (FR) 56(j), Rule 48 of Central Civil Services (CCS) (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Rule 16(3) (Amended) of All India Services (Death cum-Retirement Benefits) [AIS (DCRB)] Rules, 1958 lay down the policy of periodic review and premature retirement of government servants, which is a continuous process[
A/c to this rule, the government has the absolute right to retire officials prematurely on the ground of lack of integrity or ineffectiveness, in public interest.
This case was filed against the aforementioned order of the NPC. The applicant Sunil Kumar contends that:
On these contentions from the applicant the respondent has filed an affidavit opposing the claims of the defendant. It is stated by the respondent that:
After Hearing the contention, facts of both the party the Tribunal made the following observations:
The tribunal later observed that for the fact that an appeal preferred by the applicant (Sunil Kumar) is still pending, which was filed on 15.01.2021 and shortly thereafter the OA was filed, obviously because the OA was pending, the appellate authority did not take up the matter.
So the tribunal decided that for the benefit of the Applicant (Sunil Kumar) directed the appellate authority to dispose of the case of the applicant as soon as possible and since the appeal was pending before the appellate authority hence the OA is not maintainable.
“This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1) (A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being. Further, despite all efforts that have been made to ensure the accuracy and correctness of the information published, Legal Xpress shall not be responsible for any errors caused due to human error or otherwise.”