Union Of India And Anr vs T.Udhistiro

The respondent herein was an employee of the Customs

House/Department. He joined service as a Lower Division Clerk on

22.4.1992 and was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 24.6.1998. He

sought for promotion to the cadre of Customs Inspector. The respondent's

case was not considered by the Department, as according to the Department

rules, he had crossed the age of 55 years and he was not eligible to be

considered for promotion for appointment to Customs Inspector/PO

Examiner. The respondent filed an application for relaxation of his age but

the same was rejected by the Department. Thereafter, the respondent

moved an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad

Bench and the same was rejected by the Tribunal and thereafter the

respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order

passed by the Tribunal. The respondent pointed out before the High Court

that the department had, under similar circumstances, in the case of

A.P.Loganathan, another employee, had relaxed the age for promotion and 2

the respondent's case also should have been considered in terms of the

relaxation order passed in A.P.Loganathan's case. This contention was

accepted by the High Court and by the impugned judgment of the High

Court it was directed that the relaxation of the age of the respondent's case

may be considered in terms of the order passed in favour of A.P.Loganathan

vide F.No.A.32011/44/04-AdIIIA dated 16.12.2004. Aggrieved by this

order, the Union of India has come up in this appeal.

Heard learned Addl.Solicitor General and learned counsel for the

respondent.

It is pointed out by learned Addl.Solicitor General that the date

of birth of the respondent was 5.6.1945 and the maximum age for

promotion to the cadre of Customs Inspector/PO Examiner was 50 years and

in the case of ex-servicemen for considering for promotion to the cadre of

Customs Inspector, the age limit could be relaxable for a period of another 5

years. In the case of the respondent, he had completed the age of 55 years

in May, 2003 and as regards the maximum age, even on the basis of

relaxation, the respondent was not entitled to be considered for promotion

and it was also pointed out that Loganathan's case was not applicable to the

case relating to respondent and it was argued that the direction of the High

Court cannot be complied with as Loganathan's case was not applicable to

the present case.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

contended that the respondent had served in the Army for a period of 20

years and therefore, he is entitled to the age relaxation even if he had

completed 55 years. Of course, who have served the military, such person 3

was entitled to get age relaxation as per the various orders passed by the

Union of India but in this case the maximum age relaxation is only 5 years.

In the present case this was not applicable to the respondent as he had

already crossed the age of 55 years in May, 2003 itself. The Union of India

was right in refusing to relax further the age of the respondent and the

direction of the High Court to consider the question of relaxation on the

basis of A.P.Loganathan's case was not warranted in the facts and

circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, we clarify the decision and

the direction issued by the High Court is set aside to the extent indicated

above. Appeal is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.

...............CJI.

(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

.................J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

.................J. (J.M. PANCHAL)

NEW DELHI;

7TH JULY, 2008.