Original Application No.180/00338/2017. Case: Unnikrishnan T.V. Lower Division Clerk Vs Union of India and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal
|Case Number:||Original Application No.180/00338/2017|
|Party Name:||Unnikrishnan T.V. Lower Division Clerk Vs Union of India and Ors.|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Mr.Prakash M.P., Adv. and For Respondents: Mr. N.Anilkumar, Sr.PCGC and Mr.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, Advs.|
|Judges:||Mr. N.K Balakrishnan, Judicial Member and Mrs. P.Gopinath, Administrative Member|
|Judgement Date:||May 26, 2017|
|Court:||Central Administrative Tribunal|
N.K.Balakrishnan, Judicial Member, (Ernakulam Bench)
The applicant has approached this Tribunal for a declaration that denial of promotion to the applicant from the cadre of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) to the cadre of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) is discriminatory and illegal and for a direction to be issued to the respondents to promote him to higher grade within a time frame.
The applicant is an Ex.Servicemen. He was offered appointment of L.D.C. On 23.5.2000. He made a representation requesting him a posting in Kerala. Accordingly an order was passed on 17.11.2000 whereby the applicant was directed to report for duty at the office of Chief Engineer (Electrical), B.S.N.L. and accordingly, the applicant joined duty there on 29.11.2000. Consequent on the acceptance of the option for absorption in B.S.N.L. the applicant was granted adhoc amount of Rs.1000/- with effect from 1.10.2000. On 17.6.2004, the applicant was repatriated to Department of Telecommunications. That order of repatriation was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court as per judgement in WP(C) 18267/2004. The first respondent issued a notice requesting the applicant to make a representation if any on the proposed repatriation. Thus the applicant made a representation objecting to the repatriation. The representation submitted by him was however, rejected and they ordered to repatriate the applicant. That order was again challenged by the applicant before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C)2796/2004. By Annexure A1 judgement dated 20.02.2008 the Hon'ble High Court restrained the respondents from repatriating the applicant. That judgement was confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1276/2008. Though the respondents challenged it before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the judgment of the High Court was confirmed.
It is pointed out by the applicant that persons who were junior to the applicant were promoted with effect from 21.11.2011 and as such he made Annexure A6 representation dated 15.10.2015 followed by Annexure A7 and A8 dated 17.3.2016 and 27.04.2014 respectively. In spite of the decision rendered by the High Court which was confirmed by the Supreme Court the respondent did not grant the benefits promoting him to the post of U.D.Clerk. Since his juniors were promoted with effect from...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL