Sports Authority of India v. Smt Suma Patlumane

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2024:KHC:51523-DB RP(No.(24(of(2024 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(13 (DAY(OF(DECEMBER,(2024( PRESENT( THE(HON'BLE(MRS(JUSTICE(K.S.MUDAGAL( (AND(( (THE(HON'BLE(MR(JUSTICE(T.G.(SHIVASHANKARE(GOWDA( REVIEW(PETITION(NO.24(OF(2024 IN(WRIT(PETITION(NO.11173(OF(2022((S-CAT)((((( BETWEEN

1.,, SPORTS,AUTHORITY,OF,INDIA,, , REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,DG,,, , JAWARLAL,NEHRU,STADIUM,COMPLEX., EAST,GATE,NO.10,,LODHI,ROAD,, NEW,DELHI-110,003.,

2., SPORTS,AUTHORITY,OF,INDIA,, NETAJI,SUBHASH,SOUTHERN,CENTRE,, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,REGIONAL,DIRECTOR,, MYSORE,ROAD,,BENGALURU-560,056.,

3., ASSISTANT,DIRECTOR,, , SAI,,NETAJI,SUBHASH,SOUTHERN,CENTRE,, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,REGIONAL,DIRECTOR,, Digitallytisignedtiby MYSORE,ROAD,,BENGALURU-560,056., ,, PRAJWAL0A ,,,,,,…,PETITIONERS, Location:0HIGH0COURT (BY,SRI.,D.,BASAVARAJA,,ADVOCATE),OF0KARNATAKA AND

1., SMT.SUMA,PATLUMANE,, , D/O.,LATE,KUMARSWAMY,, , AGED,ABOUT,38,YEARS,,, WORKING,AS,COACH,ON,DEPUTATION,, FROM,WESTERN,RAILWAYS,, NETAJI,SUBHASH,SOUTHERN,CENTRE,,SAI,, MYSORE,ROAD,,BENGALURU-560,56., R/AT,NO.2-B,,RAJESWARI,HOMES,, IDEAL,COMMUNITY,HALL,ROAD,, e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2024:KHC:51523-DB RP(No.(24(of(2024 RAJA,RAJESWARI,NAGAR,, BENGALURU-560,098.,

2., UNION,OF,INDIA,, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,SECRETARY,, MINISTRY,OF,YOUTH,AFFAIRS,AND,SPORTS,, C-WING,,SHASTRI,BHAWAN,, DR.,RAJENDRA,PRASAD,ROAD,, NEW,DELHI-110,001.,

3., UNION,OF,INDIA,,, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,SECRETARY,, MINISTRY,OF,RAILWAYS,,256-A,,RAIL,BHAWAN,, RAISINA,ROAD,,NEW,DELHI-110,001.,

4., MINISTRY,OF,RAILWAYS,,GOI,, REPRESENTED,BY,THE,RAILWAY,BOARD,,, THROUGH,ITS,CHAIRMAN,,256-A,,RAIL,BHAWAN,, RAISINA,ROAD,,NEW,DELHI-110,001.,

5., RAILWAY,SPORTS,PROMOTION,BOARD,, MINISTRY,OF,RAILWAYS,,REPRESENTED,BY,ITS, THSECRETARY,,ROOM,NO.452,,4 ,FLOOR,, RAIL,BHAWAN,,NEW,DELHI-110,001.,

6., WESTERN,RAILWAYS,, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,GENERAL,MANAGER,, CHURCH,GATE,,MUMBAI-400,020., , ...RESPONDENTS, (BY,, SRI.,SUNDARA,RAMAN,M.V.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1;, ,, SMT.,A.D.VIJAYA,HAVANUR,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2,TO,R6), THIS,REVIEW,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,ORDER,XLVII,, RULE, I, READ, WITH, SECTION, 114, OF, CPC, FOR, REVIEW, OF, ORDER, DATED, 26.07.2023, IN, WRIT, PETITION, NO.11173, OF, 2022, (S-CAT), PRAYING, TO, REVIEW, THE, IMGPUGNED, JUDGMENT,AND,FINAL,ORDER,DATED,26.07.2023,IN,WP,NO., 11173/2022, (VIDE, ANNEXURE-RP-A),, IN, THE, INTEREST, OF, JUSTICE,AND,EQUITY.,, THIS, PETITION, HAVING, BEEN, HEARD, AND, RESERVED, FOR, ORDERS, ON, 22.11.2024, AND, COMING, ON, FOR, 'PRONOUNCEMENT, OF, ORDER',, THIS, DAY,,

T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL And HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA) In this petition, the review petitioners are seeking to recall and review of order dated 26.07.2023 passed in W.P.No.11173/2022.

¶2The review petitioners plead that when the writ petition was taken up for final disposal on 26.07.2023, on behalf of the review petitioners, no submission was made that the services of the writ petitioner has been extended by another period of 2 years, but in para-2 of the order of the writ petition, it is mentioned that "petitioner's service has been extended by another period of two years" which is against the instructions given to the Central Government Counsel. Such a submission will have far reaching effect as the service of the writ petitioner will be extended for a period

of two more years from the date of order and sought for review.

¶3We have heard the arguments of Sri D.Basavaraja, learned Senior Panel Counsel of Central Government for the review petitioners, Sri Sundara Raman M.V., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt.A.D.Vijaya Havanur, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 6.

¶4It is the contention of Sri D.Basavaraja that on

26.07.2023, he has not made any submission that the service of the writ petitioner has been extended by another period of two years, but it has been inadvertently mentioned in the order.

¶5Per contra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has contended that the writ petition was not decided on merits for the reason that submission was made on behalf of the Central Government that the service of the writ petitioner has been extended by another period of two years. In view of the same, the counsel appearing for the writ

petitioner has consented for disposal of the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition came to be disposed of.

5.1 It is further submitted that, the said submission is based on the letter issued to the Central Government Panel Counsel by the Sports Authority of India that the deputation period from 22.02.2021 to till repatriation of the writ petitioner will be regularized. Such letter was issued on

13.07.2023 as per Annexure-RP-C. Hence, the review petitioners cannot withdraw their submission made in the open Court, as the writ petition came to be disposed of in the open Court in the presence of both counsels. The application filed by the review petitioners in I.A.No.1/2023 for correction of order was dismissed as per the order dated 20.11.2023. Hence, review petition is not maintainable and sought for its dismissal.

¶6We gave our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on behalf of both parties and perused the records.

¶7The writ petitioner has questioned the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.186/2022 passed on 25.05.2022 regarding her deputation to the Sports Authority of India as a Coach. The writ petitioner was under deputation for a period of two years with effect from

22.02.2021 by issuing relieving order bearing No.SAI/NSSC/CD/PF/627/20-21 dated 19.05.2022 and same was questioned by the writ petitioner. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 26.07.2023, the deputation period of two years from 22.02.2021 was already lapsed and for this reason, based on the letter issued by the Sports Authority of India to the counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioners, it was communicated that the deputation period from 22.02.2021 till the repatriation of the writ petitioner will be regularized and she has been called back and she has reported for duty on 12.06.2023 at the Sports Authority of India. Since the period of deputation was already lapsed on

22.02.2023, even after lapse of period of deputation, the services of the writ petitioner was continued by the Sports Authority of India. In that context of the matter, a

submission was made in the open Court that the services of the writ petitioner has been extended by another period of two years as the period of deputation is on a block period of 2 years. It means to say that period of deputation of the writ petitioner with the Sports Authority of India was extended for a period of two years from 22.02.2023 to

21.02.2025. Under such circumstances, the writ petition was not dealt with on merits and it was disposed of. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that on expiry of two years of deputation on 22.02.2025, the writ petitioner will go back to her parental department viz., Indian Railways.

¶8The confusion on the part of the Sports Authority of India is that the period of deputation will extend from the date of order of writ petition i.e. from 26.07.2023 and it is not the purport of the order. The order passed in the writ petition reads as follows: "Heard Shri M.Narayana Bhat, learned advocate for the petitioner, Smt.A.D.Vijaya Havanur, learned standing counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 and Shri D.Basavaraj, learned CGC for respondents No.6 to 8.

¶2Learned CGC submitted that once petitioner's service book is received from Railways, salary and pending claims will be considered and accordingly, payment will be made. He further submitted that petitioner's service has been extended by another period of two years. His submission is placed on record.

¶3Learned advocate for the petitioner is satisfied with the above submission.

¶4In view of the above, nothing further survives in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Railways-respondents No.1 to 5 to send petitioner's service book to Netaji Subhash Southern Centre-respondent No.7 within a period of two weeks, positively.

¶5In view of disposal of this petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and they stand disposed of. No costs."

¶9On plain reading of the order, it is clear that the writ petitioner was under extended period of deputation from

22.02.2021 for a period of two years that expired on

22.02.2023. Another two years of deputation will expire on

22.02.2025.

¶10In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, we do not find any error or ambiguity in the order dated 26.07.2023 passed in W.P.No.11173/2022. There are no grounds for reviewing the said order. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA) JUDGE CLK List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1