Original Application No. 259 of 2013. Case: K.P. Jayadevan Vs The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | Original Application No. 259 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil, Advocate and For Respondents: George Kuruvilla, Advocate |
| Judges | U. Sarathchandran, Member (J) and P.K. Pradhan, Member (Ad.) |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | August 21, 2014 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
U. Sarathchandran, Member (J), (Ernakulam Bench)
-
M.A. No. 338/2013 for permitting the applicants to join together in this OA stands allowed.
-
Applicants, who are members of Telegraph Engineering Services Class II, have approached this Tribunal for the third occasion in connection with their promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. Their case has been aptly summarized in the order they have obtained last from this Tribunal in O.A. No. 116/2011.
The applicants in this O.A. were members of Telegraph Engineering Services Class-II. Their promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer was made, other eligibility conditions being satisfied, on the principle of seniority based on the date of passing the qualifying examination as per the instructions in Para 206 of Posts and Telegraph Manual, Volume IV. The Telegraph Engineering Services Class-II Recruitment Rules, 1996, provide for counting their seniority on the basis of year of recruitment. In the year 1981, S/Shri Paramandan Lal and Brij Mohan challenged the principle of seniority on the basis of the year of recruitment before the Hon'ble Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 2735/89 and 3652/81. On the basis of the judgments of Hon'ble Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court and also on the basis of the orders of various Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunals, like Annexure A/1, the seniority list was revised on the basis of year of qualification and seniority list 1 to 17 was issued. The Annexure A-1 order dated 29.06.1992 clearly directed the respondents to extend the benefit of judgment of the Hon'ble Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court to the applicants therein. The order of this Tribunal in Annexure A-1 was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, based on the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1997(10) SCC 226, Union of India vs. Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare Association, seniority should be based on the year of recruitment. Consequently, seniority list was once again revised to the detriment of the applicant. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court had made it clear that in respect of those similarly situated persons like Shri Paramanand Lal and who had judgments in their favour which were confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, became final, should not be affected. In terms of the clarificatory orders issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.A. No. 16 in Civil Appeal No. 4339/1995, 2000(9) SCC 71 and other cases, the applicants are entitled to be extended the benefits due to them on the basis of the Annexure A-1 judgment by revising their seniority based on the year of qualifying. The applicants had made representations to the 2nd respondent for restoring their seniority. Though the respondents issued orders granting benefit of the clarificatory orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to 45 similarly situated persons in TES Group-B, no orders were issued in respect of the applicant on the ground that they had not approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Contempt Petition..........
-
Annexure A-19 order dated 29.11.2011 the applicants obtained from this Tribunal in OA No. 116/2011 reads as follows:
7. The respondents are directed to revise the seniority of the applicants on the basis of Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-1(a) as...
To continue reading
Request your trial