2017 (1) TMI 479 - HC - Central Excise

High Court suspends Central Administrative Tribunal's order delaying promotion process for Assistant Commissioners of Central Excise, directs expedited disposal.

All India Association of Central Excise, N. Balaji Ramanathan Versus P. Bharathan, R. Mahendran, S.H. Karthikeyan, The Union of India, The Chairman, Central Board of Excise & Customs, The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, The Central Administrative Tribunal

The High Court of Madras suspended the interim order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which postponed the promotion process for Assistant ... Adjournment of matters - stalling the process of Promotion to the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise - Held that: - It is not appropriate for the learned Tribunal in allowing the matters adjourned for indefinite period and at the same time, continuing the interim order which, in fact, would not any way advance the cause of administration. In any event, any action taken by the Department pending proceedings either before the Tribunal or before this Court is always subject to the final outcome of the pending proceedings. Having said so, in the interest of administration, it is appropriate that the Original Application is directed to be disposed of by the Tribunal as expeditiously as possible, protecting the rights of the parties concerned - petition disposed off - decided in favor of petitioner. Issues:Challenging interim order of Central Administrative Tribunal regarding promotion to Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise.Analysis:The High Court of Madras dealt with two Writ Petitions challenging an interim order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1237 of 2016. The Tribunal had directed the official respondents to postpone the holding of DPC for considering personnel in the feeder post to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise based on the existing seniority list of Direct Recruit Inspectors until a specified date. The petitioners, including an association and an individual, were aggrieved by this interim order, especially due to the delay it caused in nearly 1800 appointments to the post of Assistant Commissioner.The petitioners sought their impleadment in the main Original Application and also filed applications to vacate the interim order. The official respondents also filed an application for vacating the interim order along with a reply statement. Despite applications for vacating the interim order, the main Original Application's hearing was adjourned multiple times, causing significant delays in the promotion process. The petitioners argued that the interim order, at the behest of three applicants, was impeding promotions and affecting both the rights of the association members and the administration's interests.The High Court heard arguments from the petitioners' counsel and another counsel representing a similar applicant before the Tribunal. After considering the submissions and reviewing the available material, the High Court opined that the Tribunal should have decided the Original Application instead of granting an interim order that halted the promotion process. The Court noted that the Tribunal should have modified the interim order to protect the administration's interests in case of adjournments.The High Court found it inappropriate for the Tribunal to allow indefinite adjournments while continuing the interim order, which did not serve the administration's interests. Therefore, the High Court suspended the interim order pending the disposal of the Original Application. The Court directed the Tribunal to expedite the disposal of the Original Application within four weeks, ensuring all parties are given a fair opportunity. The Writ Petitions were disposed of with the observation that any action following the Court's order is subject to the final outcome of the main Original Application pending before the Tribunal. No costs were awarded, and connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.