OA/273/2010 with MA/174/2011. Case: Kishan Singh Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | OA/273/2010 with MA/174/2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: M.S. Rao, Advocate and For Respondents: Roopal Patel, Advocate |
| Judges | Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) and M. Nagarajan, Member (J) |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 |
| Judgement Date | August 04, 2014 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A), (Ahmedabad Bench)
-
The applicant, in this case, joined the respondent department as Assistant Executive Engineer on 21-1-1976. Gradually, he rose to the post of Superintendent Engineer. On 1-10-2010 the then Government of India corporatised the Telecom Sector. The applicant joined on deemed deputation basis in BSNL. On 26-8-2005, he was granted ad hoc promotion to the post of Chief Engineer by BSNL. He was permanently absorbed in BSNL retrospectively w.e.f. 1-10-2000 by Presidential Order dated 28-11-2005. He was regularized as Chief Engineer on 5-5-2009. However, on 25-2-2010, when the respondents promoted some officers to the grade of Principal Chief Engineer including an officer junior to the applicant, the applicant was shocked to see that he had been left out for that promotion. The applicant submitted a formal representation on 3-4-2010, but did not get any reply to the same. Thereafter, the repeatedly made attempts to get information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to ascertain the cause of denial of promotion to him. On 28-5-2010, according to the applicant, he was able to procure a copy of assessment sheet which was used by the Selection Committee for recommending the cases for grant of the post of Principal Chief Engineer. A copy of the same is available at page 28 of the paper book. The applicant found that for the period from 30-8-2008 to 28-2-2009, the applicant has been granted Good grading. This probably was cause of denial of promotion to him as all other entries were Very Good. The contention of the applicant is that this below bench marked remark has never being communicated to him and yet it was mechanically taken into account by the Selection Committee. Aggrieved by such action of the respondents, the applicant has filed this OA before us seeking the following relief:
(A) hold and declare, as arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and malicious exercise of powers vested in the respondents herein and violative of the Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, the impugned decision and the consequent impugned action of the official respondents herein in declaring the applicant herein as UNFIT for the grant of promotion to the post of Principal Chief Engineer (Civil) in BSNL.
(B) Further, hold and declare that the applicant herein is lawfully eligible and entitled to be granted promotion to the post of Principal Chief Engineer (Civil) w.e.f the date his immediate junior...
To continue reading
Request your trial