Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dilip Yashwant Ghadi vs M/O Communications on 15 December, 2023
1 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.2803/2018
With
O.A.Nos.2024/2019, 748/2019, 4179/2018,
988/2019, 2017/2019, 1418/2020, 108/2021,
1256/2020
Orders reserved on : 09.11.2023
Orders pronounced on : 15.12.2023
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
OA No.2803/2018
1. Sh. Vipin
Working As WA(SG)-1
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Legal Section
R/O 107/1 Pocket A3 Sector 7
Rohini Delhi-110085
Staff No. CL-O5876, Group 'C'
2. Smt. Leela
Working as TOA(P)TBP
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
AO NCR
R/o 259/4 Village HastalUttam Nagar
Delhi-110059
Employee No. CL-5962, Group 'C'
3. Sh. Kuldeep Kumar
Working as STOAGOTBPT
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
AO NCR
R/o WZ 802 Palam Village New Delhi-110045
Staff No. CL-5741, Group 'C'
4. Sh.Pawan Kumar
Working as WA(SG)-1
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Legal Section
2 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
R/o House No. 293,JorbaghKotla
Mubarakpur, New Delhi-110003
Staff No. PN-15027, Group 'C'
5. Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma
Working as STOAGOTBPT
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Legal Section
R/O K-5/1, Gali No. -4, West Ghonda, Delhi-110053
Staff No. CL-5446, Group 'C'
6. Sh. Govind Singh
Working as Asst. Mgr.
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Finance Section
24/2 B, P &T Flat
Kaali Badi Marg, New Delhi 110001
Staff No. AC-15484, Group 'C'
7. Smt. Krishna Yadav
Working As STOAGBCR-T
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
AO(TR)-V Janakpuri
R/O 163,KrishnaKunj, Sector-8
Dwarka ,New Delhi
Staff No. CL-5210
Group 'C'
8. Sh. Jagbir Singh
Working as PM(BCR)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
R/o 663/7 Ambedkar Colony, Haidarpur, Delhi-110088
Staff No. PM1938, Group 'C'
9. Sh. Ashok Kumar Saxena
Working as SSS.T
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
a-76, Shyam Colony, Budh Vihar Phase-2,
Staff No.CL-5075, Group 'C'
10. Smt. Sangeeta Sharma
Working as SSS.T
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
C-1 Type-111,
Police Station, Station Dariyagunj, New Delhi -110002
Staff No. CL-5349, Group 'C'
11. Smt. Sanju
Working as STOAPBCR-T
3 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
1957 DobhiMaholla, Ward No.1 ,Sonipat Haryana
Staff No. TO-10781, Group 'C'
12. Smt. Sangeeta Madan
Working as Sr. TOA (G)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
52, Dharmkunj Apartments, Sector-9 ,Rohini Delhi
Staff No. CL-5353, Group 'C'
13. Ms. Sanju
Working as WA(SG)-1
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
L-2, Mohan Garden, X-2, New Delhi
Staff No. MZ-25841, Group 'C'
14. Sh. Shiv Dutt Sharma
Working as WA(BCR)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Gram-Barola , Sec. 49, Noida
Zilla Gautam Nagar (U.P)
Staff No. MZ-19608, Group 'C'
15. Sh. Harvir Singh Rathi
Working as Senior Telecom Officer Asst.
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
F-49, Lado Sarai , New Delhi-110030
Staff No. CL-5887, Group 'C'
16. Smt. Harminder Chugh
Working as Senior TOA
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
B G -5A/11 B, PaschimVihar, New Delhi -110063
Staff No. CL-5838, Group 'C'
17. Sh. Pradeep Kumar
Working as WA(SG)-1
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
5/1 B P&T Quarter, Kaali Badi Marg, New Delhi 110001
Staff No. MZ-20275, Group 'C'
18. Sh. Raj Kumar Rai
Working as Sr. T.O.A
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
A-99, Gali No.3 Part-1 Mukundpur Colony, New Delhi 110042
Staff No. CL-5954, Group 'C'
19. Sh. Narender Kumar
Working as Sr. T.O.A
4 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Makaan No. 141 Gaun Ker, New Delhi 110043
Staff No. CL-5955, Group 'C'
20. Sh. Gian Singh
Working as Sr. T.O.A
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
423 A, Shripra Sun City, Indirapuram Gaziabaad, U.P
Staff No. CL-5957, Group 'C'
21. Sh. Shukh Raj Ram
Working as WA(SG)-1
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
R.C 129, New Ajanta Park, Khoda Colony,
Dharam Vihar Ghaziabaad, U.P
Staff No. MZ-20735, Group 'C'
22. Sh. Deepak Kumar Sharma
Working as SR.(G)BCR
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
C- ......./140, West Dayalpur, Delhi-110094
Staff No.CL-5584, Group 'C'
23. Sh. Vikram Singh
Working as Work Assistant
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
2/2 C, P& T Quarters ,Type-I
Kali Badi, New Delhi
Staff No. CL-54433, Group 'C'
24. Smt. Santosh Kumari
Working SS TRD
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
H.No. 18/237 Block-18
Trilokpuri,Chilla, East Delhi-110091
Staff No. 05433, Group 'C' ....Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
M/o Communication Sanchar Bhawan
Department of Telecom
New Delhi-110002
2. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Personnel, Public
5 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
Grievances and Pensions (Department
of Pension and Pensioners Welfare )
3. The Chairman & Managing Director
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Khurshid Lal Bhawan
New Delhi-110050 .............Respondents
OA No.2017/2019
1. Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Sharma
R/o MB 134 Master Block Shakurpur, Delhi-110092
Age:42 yrs Group:C
Working as Phone Mechanic
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
SDE(MDF) Laxmi Nagar Delhi-110092
Staff No. :PM-5338
2. Sh.Sharju
S/o Sh. Hari Lal
R/o H No. 317, KhicriPur Village, Delhi-110091
Age:58 yrs Group:D
Working as Work Assistant
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
SDE Cable-III, Laxmi Nagar Delhi
Staff No. :MZ-21804
3. Bhanu Pratap Singh
S/o Sh. Bhanu Pratap Singh
R/o A-71,Gali No.-8
Pragati Vihar , Khora(U.P)
Age:52 yrs Group:C
Working as Phone Mechanic
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
SDE Cable-III
Laxmi Nagar Delhi
Staff No. :PM-5330
4. Raghu Nath
S/o Late Sh. Sukh Nandan
R/o C-5/20, Maridawati
Delhi-110092
Age:57 yrs Group:C
Working as Phone Mechanic
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
SDE(OCB) D-4, S/Room Laxmi Nagar-110092
Staff No. :PM-2664
6 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
5. Siya Ram
Sh. Antu Ram
R/o H No. -71 Gali No. -06,
Akbar Pur, BechramPur
Ghaziabad (U.P)
Age:54 yrs Group:D
Working as Work Assistant
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
SDE(PID) Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
Staff No. :MZ-22005
6. Hemant Kumar Jha
Late Sh. Rachna Kant Jha
R/o 11/839 Shankar Vihar Khora
Colony Ghaziabad
Age:59 yrs Group:C
Working as Phone Mechanic
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
SDE(PIP) Laxmi Nagar Delhi
Staff No. :PM-3165
7. Shitla Prasad
S/o Late Sh. Jagan Nath
R/o RL-807 Adarsh Nagar
Som Bazar Khora Colony (UP)
Age:59 yrs Group:C
Working as Phone Mechanic
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
SDE(UCB) D-4, Laxmi Nagar Delhi-110092
Staff No. :PM-4939
8. Sh. Chander pal
S/o Late Sh.Satpal
R/o 312, Karkardooma Village
Delhi-110092
Age:55 yrs Group:D
Working as Work Assistant
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
SDE(OCB) D-6, Laxmi Nagar Delhi
Staff No. :MZ-22782
9. Vidya Devi
S/o Sh. Har Prasad Sharma
R/o a-17 Gali No. -1
Sadhna Enclave Khora, UP
Age:56 yrs Group:D
Working as Peon
7 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
SDE(OCB) D-5, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi
Staff No. :PN-154045
10. Ganga Prasad
S/o Late Sh. Shri Ram
R/o G-3709 Ram Park Extn.
Loni Ghaziabad
Age:55 yrs Group:D
Working as DGM(C) EN
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
SDE(Complain) LXR Delhi
Staff No. :MZ -23265
11. Ram Rattan
S/o Sh.Badri
R/o C-3, Tara Enclave Khara Colony,
Tara Enclave Ghaziabaad
Age:57 yrs Group:D
Working as Work Assistant
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
SDE(Building) Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
Staff No. :MZ-20039
12. Trilok Singh
Sh. Jas Pal Singh
R/o B-25/2C P& T Colony, Delhi
Age:59 yrs Group:C
Working as Phone Manager
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
SDE(CSMS) Corporate, Laxmi Nagar Delhi-110092
Staff No. PM-4424
13. Prabhjot Kaur
Late Sh. Swaranjeet Singh
R/o 348 AGCP Enclave,
Delhi-110092
Age:48 yrs Group:C
Working as TSA
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
O/O GM(TY) AO 0(WING), Laxmi Nagar
Staff No. :CL-5387
14. Jaishri Deagwal
S/o Sh. Tirath Ram
R/o 68-B LIG Flats Pkt.
GTB Enclave, Delhi
Age:49 yrs Group:B
Working as
8 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
DGM(F) TY O/O GMTY
Staff No. AC-15493
15. Smt. Sunita Singh
D/O Sh. K.V Singh
R/o F-121-A Gali No. 7 P Nagar
Age: 56 yrs Group:C
Working as Sr. SS
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
AO P& A Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi
Staff No. :10722
16. Sh. Palo Devi
S/o Jag Saran
R/o
Age: 59 yrs Group:D
Working as
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
AO(P&A) Laxmi Nagar, Delhi
Staff No. :MZ-26204
17. Sh. Ram Shakal
S/o Sh.Ram Safar
R/o B-44 Dharam Vihar Khora Colony, UP
Age: 56yrs Group:D
Working as Work Assistant
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
COC-II South, New Delhi
Staff No. :MZ-24017
18. Sh. Raj Bir Singh
S/o Late Sh.Hoshair Singh
R/o Village Tilopta
PO Khas Dadri Disstt.
Gautam Budh Nagar(U.P)
Age: 57 yrs Group:D
Working as Work Assistant
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Laxmi Nagar Delhi-110092
Staff No. :MZ-24771
.............Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
M/o Communication Sanchar Bhawan
Department of Telecom
New Delhi-110002
9 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
2. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Personnel ,Public
Grievances and Pensions (Department
of Pension and Pensioners Welfare )
3. The Chairman & Managing Director
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Khurshid Lal Bhawan
New Delhi-110050 ...Respondents
OA No.1418/2020
1. Mr. Dilip Yashwant Ghadi
S/o Yashwant Ghadi
R/o Room No. 14, Mahakali Nagar, Dr
Narayan Hardikar Marg, Opp Sacred
Heart Church Work, Prabhadevi,
Mumbai: 400025
Working as TTA
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Mumbai
Staff No. 43704, Group 'C'
2. Mr. Joseph Anthony
S/o Sh. N. Anthony
R/o Room No. 2, Karkare Chawl Dewool
Wadi, Chakala , Andheri (East)
Mumbai : 400 099
Working as TM
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Mumbai
Staff No. 43454, Group 'C'
3. Mr. S G Khanojia
S/o Sh. Gulab Khanojia
R/o A/302 Anant Raj Building
Ambadi Road, Thane,
Maharashtra, 401202
Working as TM
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Mumbai
Staff No. 43606, Group 'C'
4. Ms. Anita Ashok Gawde
W/o Ashok Gawde
R/o BDD, Chawl No. 79, Room No. 31,
10 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
Bhagoji Waghmare Marg, Worli
Mumbai, Maharashtra-400018
Working as SR TOAG
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Mumbai
Staff No. 43632, Group 'C'
5. Mr. S B Jhadav
S/o Sh. Bhaurao Jhadav
R/o 2/135, BIT Chawl, 2nd Floor,
Sheth Moti Shah Lane,
Mazgaon, Mumbai
Maharashtra - 400010
Working as TM
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Mumbai
Staff No. 43941, Group 'C'
6. Mr. Shailesh ShivshankarDabhade
S/o Sh. Shivshankar
R/o B-1/607, Chandramukhi,
Lok Surabhi Complex, Bail Bazar,
Kalyan West, Thane
Maharashtra, 421301
Working as TM
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Mumbai
Staff No. 42914, Group 'C'
7. Mr. Prajakta Prakash Borkar
S/o Shri Rahunath
R/o 48/A M.B. Kavli Wadi, Gokhale Road
South, Mumbai : 400 028
Working as TM
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Staff No. 43669, Group 'C'
8. Ms. Remadevi Ramachandran Nair
D/o Sh. Kesavan Nair
R/o S Gomes Chawl, Talav Pakhadi, Sahar
Village, Andheri (East) Mumbai :400099
Working as SSO
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Mumbai
Staff No. 43715, Group 'C'
.... Applicants
Versus
11 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
M/o Communication Sanchar Bhawan
Department of Telecom,
New Delhi-110002
2.Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Personnel ,Public
Grievances and Pensions (Department
of Pension and Pensioners Welfare )
3.The Chairman & Managing Director
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Khurshid Lal Bhawan
New Delhi-110050 .............Respondents
OA No.748/2019
1. Sh. Chandrakant M. Bhandari
S/o Sh. Mukund Bhandari
R/o Mahaveer Nagar
2B 303 Khadak Pada, GN Kalyan(W)-421301
Age:49 yrs, Group:C
Working as Sr.TOA(G)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
MTNL House Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028
Staff No. :42481
2. Sh.Sudhir Kumar Bibhuti
S/o Sh. K.N Bibhuty
R/o D-1,602,Hyde Park
Tulsidham G.B Road, Thane(West)-400610
Age:46 yrs Group:C
Working as STSA(G)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
MTNL House Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028
Staff No. :43720
3. Smt. Priya Manoj Parenerkar
R/o181001-002,Devdayan Nagar
Phase-II Pokhran Road No.1, Thane (W)-400606
Age:53 yrs Group:C
Working as ToA -III
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
MTNL House Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028
Staff No. :41412
12 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
4. V. Sujata T Rao
W/o Sh. VT Rao
R/o Flat No. 203,2nd Floor
Vaastu Building, The Residency CHSL
Opp. Wagle Post Office, LBS Marg,Thane West-400604
Age:51 yrs., Group:C
Working as SSS
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
MTNL House Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028
Staff No. :42711
5. Smt. Bhagyalaxmi Krishnan
W/o Sh. T L G Krishnan
R/o 102,Jai Hajan CHS Ltd.
New Link Road,
Opp. Don Bosco School Borivali(W), Mumbai-400091
Age:54 yrs., Group:C
Working as SSS
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
MTNL House Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028
Staff No. :42012
6. M. Vasanthi Thyagrajan
D/o Sh. Shanmugan
R/o 3/H No. 3, Yashodhra Apartments
4 Bunglows, Andheri(W), Mumbai-400053
Age:50 yrs., Group:B
Working as DME
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
MTNL House Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028
Staff No. :42729
7. Kamlesh G Ranadive
S/o Sh. Ganesh Murlidhar Ramadive
R/o Saket CHS Ltd.
B-71502, Saket Bulkim Road, Thane(W)-400601
Age:48 yrs., Group:C
Working as TTA
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
MTNL House Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028
Staff No. :42483
8. Sh. Dinesh R Yadav
S/o Sh. Ramraj Yadav
R/o A 135,Geetanjali Bldg.
Dr. DB Marg, Mumbai Central
Mumbai-400008
Age:48 yrs., Group:C
13 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
Working as Sr. TOA(G)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
MTNL House Dadar (W)
Mumbai-400028
Staff No. :42472
9. Ram Thadhram Barteja
S/o Sh. T S Barteja
R/o 401,Mannat Gala, Mumbai
Age:50 yrs., Group:B
Working as DM
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
MTNL House Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028
Staff No. :42760
10. Sunil V Kukreja
S/o Sh. V J Kukreja
R/o Shiv Darshan CHS,
Ulhasnagar-421003, Mumbai
Age:49 yrs., Group:B
Working as DGM(C) EN
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
MTNL House Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028
Staff No. :43575
11 .Ramdas M. Govardhane
S/o Sh.Mukund V Govardhane
R/o A-102,DSK Project,
Kalyan Nagari,Sangale Wadi, Near Kalyan Rly. Stn.
Kalyan (W) 421301, Mumbai
Age:43 yrs Group:C
Working as SSO
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
MTNL House Dadar (W)
Mumbai-400028
Staff No. :43714
12. Ms. Deepa Ramchandran
W/o Sh. Ramchandran
R/o KaypeeHeritage,Plot No. 4
Sector 7,KoperKhairre, Navi Mumbai
Age:48 yrs Group:C
Working as STSA
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
MTNL House Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028
Staff No. :43517
13. Smt. Jayshree J Koli
D/o Sh. Jitendra M Koli
14 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
R/o Vijaydeep CHS,41410411, Naviroji Road
Colaba Mumbai-400005
Age:46 yrs Group:C
Working as TSA
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
MTNL House Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028
Staff No. :44153
14. Jaydeep P Satam
S/o Sh. Prabhakar Pandurang Satam
R/o Jai Bhagirathi Bldg,
Flat No. G/1 Basav-Kalyan Nagar
Shiv Mandir Road, Ambernath(E)-421501
Age:40 yrs Group:C
Working as TOA(G)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
MTNL House Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028
Staff No. :44039
15. Suresh. M. Gambre
S/o Sh.M.R Gamre
R/o A-203, Swapan Sagar Co. Housing
RJ Nagar Phool Pada Road, Virar(E)401305
Age: yrs Group:C
Working as TM
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
MTNL House Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028
Staff No. :55204
16. Sh. R.D Awad
S/o Sh.D K Awad
R/o Satyam Housing Society
Room No. 403 Near Gaondhari Mandir, Kalwa(W)-400605
Age: 52 yrs Group:C
Working as
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
MTNL House Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028
Staff No. :
17. Sh. Tulsiram S. Kamble
S/o Sh.D K Awad
R/o Jai Bhagirathi Bldg. Flat No. 302,
Shiv Mandir Road, Ambernath(E)-421501
Age: 49 yrs Group:C
Working as Sr. TOA(G)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
MTNL House Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028
Staff No. :43794
15 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
18. Sh. Y T Netkar
S/o Sh. T M Netkar
R/o B-204/2nd Mohamdid Nagar Mangli Gaon Road,
Badlapur(W)-421503
Age: 44 yrs Group:C
Working as TM
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
MTNL House Dadar (W)
Mumbai-400028
Staff No. :43939
19. Smt. Surekha S. Sathe
W/o Sh. Sathe
R/o Gokulpura R No.5
Near Namaskar Mandal
Agra Road,Kalyan(W)-421301
Age: yrs Group:C
Working as Sr. TOA(G)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
MTNL House Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028
Staff No. :42472
.............Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
M/o Communication Sanchar Bhawan
Department of Telecom
New Delhi-110002
2. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions (Department
of Pension and Pensioners Welfare)
3. The Chairman & Managing Director
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Khurshid Lal Bhawan, New Delhi-110050.
4. The Executive Director,
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Mumbai.
....Respondents
OA No.4179/2018
Sh. Laxman Singh
Working As Phone Mechanic
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
AO Central
16 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
R/O A-35, Gali No. 2, Harijan Basti Patel Vihar ,
Karawal Nagar , Delhi-110094
Staff No.PM4460
....Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
M/o Communication Sanchar Bhawan
Department of Telecom, New Delhi-110002
2. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Personnel ,Public
Grievances and Pensions (Department
of Pension and Pensioners Welfare )
3. The Chairman & Managing Director
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Khurshid Lal Bhawan
New Delhi-110050 .............Respondents
OA No.988/2019
Sh. Arvind Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Jai Bhagwan
R/o House No. 483 Ward No. 11, Dayanand Nagar
Bahadurgarh, Haryana
Age: 52 yrs Group:'C'
Working as STOA (G)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
O/O GM(SS) Staff No.:CL-5243
.........Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
M/o Communication Sanchar Bhawan
Department of Telecom
New Delhi-110002
2. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Personnel ,Public
Grievances and Pensions (Department
of Pension and Pensioners Welfare )
3. The Chairman & Managing Director
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Khurshid Lal Bhawan, New Delhi-110050
....Respondents
17 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
OA No.1256/2020
Sh. Satya Pal
S/o Sh. Ram Chander
R/o 48, Sant Nagar East of Kailash
New Delhi - 110065
Working As Phone Mechanic
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Staff No. DPM-2232, Group 'C' ....Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
M/o Communication Sanchar Bhawan
Department of Telecom
New Delhi-110002
2. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Personnel ,Public
Grievances and Pensions (Department
of Pension and Pensioners Welfare )
3. The Chairman & Managing Director
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Khurshid Lal Bhawan
New Delhi-110050 .............Respondents
OA No.108/2021
1. Mr. Anil Kumar Soreng
S/o Late Sh. Marcus Soreng
R/o E-396, DDA Flats Bindapur,
Pocket-3, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110059
Working as TC
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Staff No. TC11221, Group 'C'
2. Mr. Krishan Lal Luthra
S/o Late Sh. O.P Luthra
R/o 27/43A/3 Jwala Nagar,
Shahdra, Delhi - 110032
Working as Section Supervisor
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Staff No. CL-5929, Group 'C'
18 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
3. Mr. Rajeev Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Chander M. Sharma
R/o
Working as Section Supervisor
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Staff No. CL-5833, Group 'C'
4. Mr. Ramesh Chander Sublania
S/o Late Sh. Raghu Nath Sublania
R/o 24-C, LIG Flat, Prasad Nagar,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005
Working as SS
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Staff No. CL5445, Group 'C'
5. Ms. Agnes Kujur
W/o Sh. Jamesh Kujur
R/o 843, Type-F,
Timarpur, Delhi
Working as Sr. TOA
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Staff No. CL05091, Group 'C'
6. Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh
S/o Sh. Shitla Prasad
R/o 27/A Daktar Colony,
Kalibadi Marg, Delhi-110001
Working as SS
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Staff No. CL5599, Group 'C'
7. Mr. Rahul Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Charanjit Lal
R/o 15 Janta Flats,
Vivek Vihar, Delhi-110095
Working as SS
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Staff No. CL5889, Group 'C'
8. Mr. Om Prakash Sharma
S/o Girdgar Prasad Sharma
R/o House No. 216/3, Bhim GarhKhedi, Haryana
Working as Work Assistant
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Staff No. WA-25477, Group 'C'
9. Ms. Usha Rani
W/o Sh. Tara Chand
19 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
R/o 1756A, Pratham Tal,
Gali No. 6, Govindpuri Extn.
Kalkaji, New Delhi - 110019
Working as SS
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Staff No. CL5892, Group 'C'
10. Ms. Neeta
W/o Sh. Bhagirath
R/o House No. 11786, Gali No. 6,
Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi - 110005
Working as Senior Section Supervisor
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Staff No. CL-5424, Group 'C'
11. Mr. Pradeep Kumar
S/o Sh. Nauhria Ram
R/o C 474, Gali No. 44, Mahaveer Enclave Part 3,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi - 110059
Working as STOA (OTBP)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Staff No. CL5933, Group 'C'
12. Mr. Rahul Kaushik
S/o Late Sh. L. D. Kaushik
R/o B-2/419, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi - 110053
Working as SS
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Staff No. CL-5906, Group 'C'
13. Mr. Devi Dayal Joshi
S/o Sh. Bachi Ram Joshi
R/o
Working as Lorry Driver
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Staff No. DR11490, Group 'C'
14. Ms. Narender Kaur
W/o Sh. Youdhvir Singh
R/o Sector 6/ 587, RK Puram, New Delhi
Working as Senior BCR
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Staff No. CL5462, Group 'C'
15. Mr. Daulat Ram
S/o Late Sh. Anant Ram
R/o 25/2 DP&T Flat Colony,
Badi Marg, New Delhi - 110001
20 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
Working as SS (O)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Staff No. CL5419, Group 'C'
16. Mr. Raj Kumar
S/o Kamal Singh
R/o 27E, Mandavali, Uchhe Par,
Gali No. 12, Delhi - 110092
Working as WA
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Staff No. MZ-25210, Group 'C'
17. Ms. Amita Arora
W/o Sh. Sandeep Arora
R/o House No. 610, Nimdi Colony, Delhi - 110052
Working as Sr. TOA (T)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Staff No. CL-5384, Group 'C'
18. Mr. Raj Pal
S/o Sh. Sher Singh
R/o B-305, Uttary Gonda,
Shahdra, Delhi - 110053
Working as Lorry Driver
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Staff No. DR-11381, Group 'C'
19. Mr. Naresh Kumar
S/o Rulia Ram
R/o Gaon Va Dakghar Jila
Rohtak, Haryana
Working as Work Assistant
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Staff No. MZ-22850, Group 'C'
20. Mr. Pramod Kumar
S/o Sh. R.S. Rai
R/o 391-A, Shiprason City,
Indra Puram, Ghaziabad, UP-201014
Working as TTA
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Staff No. TA-1425, Group 'C'
21. Mr. Jitender Yadav
S/o Sh. Braham Dutt
R/o 837, Sector 6, Rama Krishna
Puram, New Delhi - 110022
Working as Welfare Inspector
21 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Staff No. CL-5228, Group 'C'
22. Mr. Ishwar Chand
S/o Late Sh. Surya Narayana
R/o House No. 294, Block E-3, Gali No. 7,
Sonia Vihar - 110094
Working as Work Assistant
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Staff No. WA-26056, Group 'C'
23. Mr. Kishan Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Janardhan Singh
R/o H. No. 419, Sector 6, RK Puram, New Delhi - 22
Working as Sr. TOA
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Staff No. CL-5930, Group 'C'
.... Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
M/o Communication Sanchar Bhawan
Department of Telecom
New Delhi-110002
2.Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Personnel ,Public
Grievances and Pensions (Department
of Pension and Pensioners Welfare)
3.The Chairman & Managing Director
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Khurshid Lal Bhawan
New Delhi-110050 ..... Respondents
OA No.2024/2019
1. Sh. Raj Kumar
S/o Sh. Kanhaya Lal
R/o Plot No. 78, Sant Garh, Gali No. 34
Tilak Nagar, Delhi - 110018
Age:52 yrs Group:C
Working as SSS
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Rajouri Garden ,New Delhi
Staff No. :CL-5181
22 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
2. Sh. Rajkumar Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Satpal Sharma
R/o Quarter No. 399, Sector 6,
RK Puram, P and T Colony, New Delhi - 110022
Age:51 yrs, Group:B
Working as AO (LOP)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Room No. 520 Parliament
House Annexe, New Delhi -110001
Staff No. :AC-15501
3. Sh. Sunil Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Makhan Lal
R/o A-5 A/96, Janak Puri, New Delhi - 110058
Age:56 yrs, Group: B
Working as AM(ELECT)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Room No.1, 2nd FloorAdmin Building,
Rajouri Garden , New Delhi- 110027
Staff No. :DM-13788
4. Sh. Rajender Singh
S/o Sh. Bhane Ram
R/o N-10, Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh, Delhi - 110043
Age:54 yrs, Group:B
Working as AM(ELECT)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
O/o EE(E0 RHN 3rd floor Sec. 3
Rohini, New Delhi
Staff No. :DD-M13769
5. Smt. Usha Rani
D/o Late Sh. Raj Kumar
R/o B-1/50, Sewak Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi - 110059
Age:59 yrs, Group: D
Working as WA(SG)-1
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Rajori Garden, New DelhiR
Staff No. :MZ-15014
6. Sh. Dhiresh Kumar Dubey
Sh. P.K. Dubey
R/o 438/1212 Pocket-2, Paschim Puri, New Delhi - 110063
Age:48 yrs. Group: C
Working as Senior S. S.
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Sanchal Haat, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi - 110027
Staff No. :CL-5914
23 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
7. Sh. Gopal
Sh. Ram Prasad
R/o 50 Ramjanpur, Post Office Alipur, Delhi - 110036
Age:49 yrs., Group:C
Working as Hindi Translator
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Office of GM West, Rajouri Garden 110027
Staff No. :HT-1133
8. Sh. Sumer Singh
S/o Sh. Gokul Chand
R/o G-27, G Block, Prem Nagar, Najafgarh, Delhi - 110043
Age:53 yrs., Group:B
Working as Assistant Manager (OL)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Bhikaji Kama place, New Delhi 110043
Staff No:HT-1124
9. Smt. Dolly Mulchandani
D/o Sh. Anoop KM Mulchandani
R/o A-2/69, Ground Floor, Janakpuri, Delhi - 110058
Age:49 yrs., Group:D
Working as SENIOR S/S
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
0/0 Marg, Janak Puri New Delhi- 110058
Staff No. :CL-05443
10. Sh. Lal Bahadur Yadav
S/o Sh. Pyare Lal Yadav
R/o S-4, Gali No. 6, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi - 110059
Age:53 yrs., Group:C
Working as Phone Mechanic(BCR)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
SDO 1, Janakpuri District Centre West 1
Staff No. :PM-5261
11. Sh. Sanjay Yadav
S/o Late Sh. Daya Chand yadav
R/o A-3, Raksha Kunj, Paschim Vihar, Delhi - 110063
Age:43 yrs., Group:C
Working as S.S.TRD
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
TRA Janakpuri, New Delhi
Staff No. :CL-5834
12. Sh. Jai Bhagwan
S/o Late Sh. Jage Ram
24 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
R/o House No. 302, Gaon O.P. Bhakkarvala, Delhi - 110041
Age: 54 yrs., Group:C
Working as DM(NS)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Mgr Cable, Janak Puri , New Delhi -110058
Staff No. DDM13785
13. Sh. Umesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
R/o RZ- 23, Jain Colony, Uttam Nagar, Delhi - 110059
Age: 56 yrs., Group:D
Working as WA(SG)-1
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
MGR (Cable), Janak Puri, New Delhi-110059
Staff No. :WA-25307
14. Sh. Rajesh Singh
S/o Late Sh. Matwar Singh
R/o G-33, Gali No. 22, Jain Road,
Bhagwati Garden Extn., Uttam Nagar, Delhi - 110059
Age:44 yrs., Group:C
Working as TSA
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
O/O AO(NCR), West Janak Puri, New Delhi
Staff No. :CL-5902
15. Sh. Vinod Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash
R/o Plot No. 44, New T - Block, Uttam Nagar, Delhi - 110095
Age:50 yrs., Group:C
Working as SR S.S.
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
West Rajouri Garden, New Delhi 110027
Staff No. CL-5077
16. Smt. Anita Arora
W/o Sh. Rakesh Arora
R/o Flat 652, New Ashiana Apartments Sec-6, Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110075
Age: 44 yrs., Group:C
Working as SR. SS
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
AM(Dwarka), New Delhi
Staff No. DCL5458
17. Sh. Ram Kewal
S/o Late Sh. Ram Dass
R/o S-61 -C, S Block, Vikas Nagar
25 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
Gali No. 7/11, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, 110059
Age: 58 yrs., Group:D
Working as PM(BCR)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
AO(P&A) Laxmi Nagar, Delhi
Staff No. :DPM4971
18. Sh. Rajinder Prasad
Village: Rehna Dipalpur, District Riwari, Post Office Mastapur
S/o Sh. Braham Dutt
Age: 59 yrs., Group:D
Working as WA(SG)-1
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Mgr (Cable), Janak Puri, New Delhi- 110058
Staff No. :MZ-22390
19. Sh. Lekh Ram
S/o Late Sh. Bhai Lal
R/o A-80, D Block, Vihar Gaon,
Nilothi, Delhi - 110058
Age: 55 yrs., Group:D
Working as WA(BCR)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Laxmi Nagar Delhi-110092
Staff No. :DMZ19927
20. Sh. Narsingh Pal
S/o Late Sh. Bangali Babu
R/o Plot No. 17, Gali No. 2, Bharat Garden, Matiyal Road
Uttam Nagar, Delhi - 110059
Age: 55 yrs., Group:D
Working as WA(SG)-1
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Mgr (Cable), Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058
Staff No. :MZ-24819
21. Sh. Lalji Ram
S/o Late Sh. Bhrigunath Ram
R/o D-11, CH 17, MTNL Apartments,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi - 110087
Age: 52 yrs., Group:B
Working as Manager (TEL)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Laxmi Nagar Delhi-110092
Staff No. :JE:5247
22. Smt. Geeta Behl
W/o Sh. Manish Behl
26 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
R/o B-82,Suryanagar Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
Age: 43yrs., Group:C
Working as Senior Section Supervisor(Hindi Section)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
GM (Admin)HQ
Hindi Section (HQ), K.L Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi
Staff No. :CL-5877
23. Smt. Jayanti Naugin
W/o Sh. Anil Naugin
R/o 73,Typr III Sector -2, Sadiq Nagar Delhi
Age: yrs., Group:
Working as Stenographer
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
AGM(Mktg), K.L. Bhawan, New Delhi
Staff No. :PA-13880
24. Ms. Sunita
D/o Sh. Ram Chander
R/o 24/4 B Kali Bari Marg, P&T Colony, New Delhi-110001
Age: 46 yrs., Group:C
Working as P.A
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
AGM(Legal) Room No.577
Khursheed Lal Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110050
Staff No. :13872
25. Smt. Rajni Suri
W/o Late Sh. Krishan Suri
R/o C-675 Secind Floor
Behind Sudarshan Park, Moti Nagar Delhi-110015
Age: 49 yrs., Group: C
Working as P.A
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
GM(Law) HQ Room No.415, Khursheed Lal Bhawan, Delhi
Staff No. :PA-13891
26. Smt. Kavita Rana
W/o Sh. Manwar Singh Rana
R/o B-4/335 Paryatan Vihar
Vasundhra Enclave Delhi-110096
Age: 47yrs., Group:C
Working as TSA (Telecom Secretriate Assistant)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
GM (East), 1st Floor, Tis Hazari, New Delhi-110054
Staff No. :PA-13882
27. Smt. Santosh Gupta
27 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
W/o Late Sh. Subhash Chandra Gupta
R/o F-92,West Jyoti Nagar Gali No.-9
Kardam Marg Shahdara Delhi-110032
Age: 58 yrs., Group:
Working as Sr.TOA(G)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Medical Section, 5th Floor, Tis Hazari
Telephone Exchange, Delhi-110054
Staff No. : CL-5441
28. Sh. Jai Prakash Sharma
S/o Sh. Late. Bhanu Prakash Sharma
R/O C-383, alpha-1, Greater Noida
Age: 41yrs., Group:
Working as Manager (Finance)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, GM (NP)
Staff No. :AC-15325
29. Sh. Rajesh Kumar
S/o Late Sh.Phool Chand
R/o C-295, Ambedkar Nagar, Sec-5
Dakshin Puri, New Delhi-110062
Age: 47 yrs., Group:
Working as A0
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Kamal Puri
Staff No. :AC-15497
30. Smt. Rekha Ghosh
W/o Sh. Surojit Ghosh
R/o E-127, Masjid Moth GK-II, New Delhi
Age: yrs., Group:B
Working as AM(Official Language)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Khursheed Lal Bhawan
Staff No. :HT-1127
31. Smt. Kalawati Badola
W/o Sh. Dr. Kailash Chander Badola
R/o H-18/18 First Floor, Malviya Nagar-110017
Age: 45 yrs., Group:
Working as Senior Section Supervisior
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, GM, Nehru Place
Staff No. :CL-5465
32. Smt. Leenu Kundral
W/o Sh. Rajesh Kundral
R/o F-9A Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
Age: 43 yrs., Group:C
28 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
Working as
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited,
Khursheed Lal Bhawan
Staff No. :CL-5849
33. Sh. Rajendra Singh
S/o Sh. Late Bhane Ram
R/o N-10, Gali No.5, Gopal Nagar
Najafgarh New Delhi- 110043
Age: 43 yrs., Group:B
Working as Assistant Manager (E)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
EE(E) RHN 3rd Floor, Sec-3, Rohini, Delhi
Staff No. :DM-13769
34. Sh. Sunil Kumar
S/o Sh. Lt. Makhan Lal
R/o A5-A/96, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058
Age: 56 years., Group-B
Working as Assistant Manager (Elect.)
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Room No.1 , Admin Building
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027
Staff No.- D.M-13788
35. Smt. Saroj Bisht
W/o Sh. MS Bisht
R/o D-115 Motibagh, New Delhi 110021
Age: 59 years., Group: C
Working as Sr. TOAP
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
SDE(ADMIN) GMBCP, MTNL, New Delhi-110021
Staff No.
36. Smt. Rashmi Chhabra
W/o Sh. KAMAL Kishor Chhabra
R/o 94B Deep Enclave, Phase-3,
Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 110052
Age- 43 yrs, Group: C
Working as Senior Manager
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Ashok Vihar, Shakti Nagar, Telephone Exchange, New Delhi
Staff No. CL-5883
37. Sh.Vishva Nath
S/o Sh. Ram Bhuj
R/o A-3/ 210 Janak Puri
New Delhi- 110058
29 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
Age: 56 years, Group: C
Working as SDOP
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
G.M , West, Rajori Garden, New Delhi 110027
Staff No. PM-3195
38. Sh. Rabendra Kumar Singh
S/o. Lt. Bishwa Nath Singh
R/o. B-3/10 PAT colony
Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058
Age:56 years, Group: C
Working as Phone Mechanic
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
G.M , West, Rajouri Garden, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi-
110027
Staff No. PM-2906
39. Sh. Baljeet Singh
S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan
R/o H.No. 89, V.P.O Khera Dabar, New Delhi-110073
Age:56 yrs., Group: D
Working as Assistant SDOP
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
G.M, WEST, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027
Staff No. MZ-23300
40. Sh. Ram Daur
S/o Sh. Bhero, R/o
Age: 56 years, Group: D
Working as Work Assistant with SDOP
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
G.M, WEST, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027
Staff No. MZ-24272
41. Sh. Subash Chander Singh
S/o Sh. R.N. Singh
R/o 10A, OCS Apartments, Mayur Vihar, Delhi-110091
Age: 53 years, Group: C
Working as
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Office of G.M(Central) Room No. 202,
Eastern Court, Janpath, New Delhi
Staff No. HT-1134
42. Sh. Narender Singh
S/o. Sh. Lt. Hans Ram
R/o. 216
Age:59, Group: C
30 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
Working as
With Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Rz 216, C2 J Blk, Sagar Puri, Delhi
Staff No. DR-11242. ... Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
M/o Communication Sanchar Bhawan
Department of Telecom
New Delhi-110002
2. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions (Department
of Pension and Pensioners Welfare )
3. The Chairman & Managing Director
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Khurshid Lal Bhawan
New Delhi-110050
...Respondents
Memo of appearances:
For the Applicants: Mr. A.K.Behera, learned senior counsel
assisted by Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, Shri A.K.
Kaushik, Ms. Nisha Bhatnagar
For the Respondents: Mr. Mohd. Faisal, Mr. Saiful Islam, Mr.
Subhash Gosain, Mr. Satish Kumar,
Mr. S.N.Verma and Mr. Sanjeev Yadav
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J):
The aforesaid matters have come before us for answer to references made by the learned Division Bench of this Tribunal vide common Order dated 03.08.2023, the references, which required to be answered are in para 11 31 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch of the said common Order/Judgment dated 03.08.2023.
Para 11 of which reads as under:-
"11. We, therefore, deem it appropriate that the following issues be referred to a Full Bench/Larger Bench in view of the emerging two conflicting views in the aforesaid cases Asha Devi (supra) and Rajender Singh Rawat (supra):
(1) Whether the point of law decided in Asha Devi (supra) which was upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No.9070/2018 and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 16592/2019 leaving the question of law open, can be dealt with by a different Bench of this Tribunal taking a different view in Rajender Singh Rawat (supra)?
(2) When the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismisses an SLP and further observes that the Question of Law is kept open, does it bound the Tribunal to follow their earlier decision which has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court by a reasoned order and against which SLP has been dismissed in peculiar facts of the case?
(3) If the answer to the aforementioned references is in the affirmative, what relief would the respective parties be entitled to?"
2. Admittedly, the lead case amongst the captioned OAs is OA No.2803/2018. Accordingly, before we proceed to consider the submissions made on behalf of the parties on the aforesaid reference(s), factual matrix may be taken from the said OA 2308/2018.
32 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch3. The applicants initially joined the services as Central Government employees under the Respondent No.1. The respondent No.3, i.e., Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'MTNL') was established on 1.4.1986 to manage and control the telecom services in two metropolitan cities, i.e., Delhi and Mumbai. The officers and staff working under the Respondent No.1 were transferred en masse to Respondent No.3 on deemed deputation basis. Groups 'C' and 'D' employees, including the applicants herein were sent to the Respondent No.3 on deemed deputation basis and were absorbed under the Respondent No.3 w.e.f. 1.11.1998 in accordance with the provisions contained in OM dated 5.7.1989 of Department of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare, i.e., Respondent No.2.
The Presidential Orders for such absorption were issued during the year 2001-2002. The absorbed employees of the Respondent No.3 were given the following options for pensionary benefits:-
(i) Pro rata pensionary benefits; &
(ii) Pensionary benefits as per Government rules on the basis of combined services rendered in Government and MTNL.
33 OA No.2803/2018 and BatchIn case where the MTNL absorbed employees opted for option (i), the pensionary benefits were being paid by the Government and those employees, who opted for option
(ii), the pensionary benefits were being borne by the MTNL (Respondent No.3) from its own resources since the financial year 2001-2002 and vide notification dated 3.3.2014 issued by the Respondent No.2, the pensionary benefits in respect of those employees, who opted for option (ii), were paid by the Respondent No.1, w.e.f.
1.10.2000. The applicants had less than 10 years of service under the Respondent No.1, when they were absorbed under the Respondent No.3, w.e.f. 1.11.1998.
They had specifically chosen for option (i) for the services rendered under Respondent No.1, i.e., pro rata pensionary benefits. As they had not completed requisite 10 years of qualifying service in terms of the provisions of Rule 37-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1972'), they were granted lump sum dues in place of pro rata pension. Their representations in this regard had been considered and were rejected by the respondents. Accordingly, the applicants approached this Tribunal for direction to the respondents to provide another one-time option for opting combined service 34 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch pension. The applicants in support of their claim placed reliance on the Order/Judgment dated 8.9.2017 of learned Single Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.1490/2015, titled Smt. Asha Devi vs. Union of India and others, which was challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi through Writ Petition (Civil) No.9070/2018 and the said Writ Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide a detailed Order/Judgment dated 16.11.2018 with certain modifications and directions. The said Order/Judgment dated 16.11.2018 of the Hon'ble High Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court through SLP (C) (Diary No.16592/2019) and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide Order/Judgment dated 2.7.2019 keeping the question of law open.
4. The claim of the applicants was opposed and the respondents argued that similar issued was raised before this Tribunal by similarly placed persons being OA No.553/2020, titled Rajinder Singh Rawat and others vs. Union of India and others, learned Single Bench of this Tribunal after considering the Order/Judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Asha Devi (supra) dismissed 35 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch the said OA vide Order/Judgment dated 22.2.2023 holding that though the Hon'ble Apex Court had dismissed the aforesaid SLP in the case of Smt. Asha Devi (supra), however, the question of law was kept open and when the question of law held by the Hon'ble Apex Court was in personam and not in rem.
5. At the request on behalf of the applicant(s) learned counsels, the captioned OAs were placed before the learned Division Bench, the same were heard together by the learned Division Bench.
6. Keeping in view conflicting views of the two learned Single Benches of this Tribunal, one in Smt. Asha Devi (supra) and another in Rajender Singh Rawat (supra), the learned Division Bench has framed the issues and referred the same, as reproduced in para 1 hereinabove, to a Full Bench/Larger Bench vide order dated 3.8.2023.
Accordingly, the matters are before us under the order of the Hon'ble Chairman, to answer the aforesaid issues/references.
36 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch7. It is undisputed that original applicant in the case of Smt. Asha Devi (supra) is the widow of late Shri Chandi Prasad Bamrara, who joined the services of the respondent No.1, i.e., Department of Telecommunication on regular basis on 1.1.1992 as a regular Mazdoor. After rendering seven years of service with them, he was deemed to have retired on 31.10.1998 and was brought on the rolls of the respondent No.3, i.e., MTNL on 1.11.1998.
After his unfortunate demise on 5.7.2012 while working under the respondent No.3, he left behind six dependent family members. The widow - Smt. Asha Devi (supra) approached this Tribunal vide OA No.1490/2015, as she was not granted any pension on the premises that her late husband has not rendered qualifying service either under the respondent No.1 or under the respondent No.3. For rejection, the respondents had placed reliance on option taken from the applicant's deceased husband at the time of his absorption under the respondent No.3, i.e., (i) pro rata pensionary benefits and (ii) pensionary benefits as per the Government rules on the basis of combined services rendered in the Govt. and the MTNL. After considering the claim and the counter claim in the said OA, i.e., OA No.1490/2015 filed by Smt. Asha Devi was decided by 37 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch learned Single Bench of this Tribunal vide Order/Judgment dated 8.9.2017. The said Order/Judgment dated 8.9.2017 of learned Single Bench of this Tribunal was challenged by the respondents herein before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide Writ Petition (Civil) No.9070/2018, titled Union of India and another vs. Smt. Asha Devi and the Hon'ble High Court disposed of the said Writ Petition vide Order/Judgment dated 16.11.2018, paras 5 to 7 whereof read as under:-
"5. The Tribunal has required the petitioner to go through the formality of again asking for a fresh option from the respondent. In our view, there is no need for the same. For that procedure to be adopted, the same exercise of any option is futile. The only option available is that the service rendered by the respondent's husband with the Government (DoT) has to be counted for determination of pensionary benefits that are admissible from the MTNL.
6. While dismissing this petition, we therefore direct that without awaiting for any further option, the petitioner should count the service rendered by the respondent's husband with the DoT for computing his other benefits with the MTNL.
7. Petition and the applications are disposed of in abovesaid terms."
8. On further challenge before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the SLP (Civil) (Diary No.16592/2019) was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide Judgment dated 2.7.2019 and the said Judgment reads as under:-
38 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch"Delay condoned.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any reason to interfere in the matter. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The question of law are however kept open.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
9. Shri Behera, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants has argued that once the Order/Judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Asha Devi (supra) has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court with certain modifications and with reasons therefor, even though while dismissing the SLP against the said Order/Judgment of the Tribunal and that of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the Hon'ble Apex Court has left the question of law open, the Order/Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court would be binding for this Tribunal.
10. On the other hand, Shri Faisal, Shri Verma and Shri Gosain, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents, have argued that the Order/directions of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Asha Devi (supra) and that of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Smt. Asha Devi (supra) was out of considering the sympatric consideration of the applicant
- Smt. Asha Devi (supra) (wife of deceased Govt.
39 OA No.2803/2018 and Batchemployee) and thus leaving behind six dependents and thus the relief(s) were granted to the applicant out of sympathy and compassion. They have further submitted that claim of the applicants in the captioned OAs are not maintainable as the same is barred by limitation. They have further added that action(s)/order(s) of the respondents impugned in the captioned OAs are in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions and no interference is warranted by this Tribunal.
11. Shri Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent(s) has also argued that the Order/Judgment of the Tribunal in Smt. Asha Devi (supra) upheld with certain modifications by the Hon'ble High Court is not binding precedent in as much as the applicants are not entitled to benefit sought for. In support of his such argument, Shri Kumar, learned counsel, has placed reliance on the following Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:-
(i) P. Bandopadhya and others vs. Union of India and others in civil Appeal No.3149/2019, decided on 15.3.2019;40 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch
(ii) Union of India and others vs. K. Premakumari etc. etc. in Civil Appeal Nos.233-244 of 2021, decided on 28.1.2021; and
(iii) Kunhayammed and others vs. State of Kerala and another, reported in 2000 (6) SCC 359.
12. We have perused the relevant pleadings available on record, Orders/Judgments referred to by the learned counsels for the parties and have also considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
13. So far the objection raised by the learned counsels for the respondents about maintainability of the captioned OAs on the ground that the same are barred by limitation is concerned, we are of the considered view that the same is not before us for consideration. Moreover, the appropriate Division Bench can considered the same while finally adjudicating the captioned OAs, of course, keeping in view the facts that such objection was raised by the respondents in the case of Smt. Asha Devi (supra) and law on this point.
14. On perusal of the aforesaid order of learned Single Bench of this Tribunal and that of the Hon'ble High Court 41 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch confirming/modifying the same in the case of Smt. Asha Devi (supra), it is apparent that the Order/Judgment of the Tribunal was keeping in view the relevant policy regarding the option under reference and the same was not based on mere sympathy and compassion. Further the same was Order/Judgment of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court with certain modifications and reasons vide Order/Judgment dated 16.11.2018. Though, the SLP filed against such Order/Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court was dismissed vide Judgment dated 2.7.2019 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, the same does not merge with that of the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, the Order/Judgment dated 8.9.2017 of learned Single Bench of the Tribunal has merged with the Order/Judgment dated 16.11.2018 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi keeping in view the fact that Hon'ble High Court while dismissing the said Writ Petition filed by the respondents against the Order/Judgment of learned Single Bench of this Tribunal in Smt. Asha Devi (supra), has not only modified the order of this Tribunal but has also considered the relevant policy qua the option and has given reasons.
42 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch15. Admittedly, the applicants herein in the present OAs and deceased husband of the applicant in the case of Smt. Asha Devi were similarly placed as they had not completed 10 years service under the respondent No.1 for being eligible for pro-rata pension in terms of clause (i) of the aforesaid option. In this view of the matter, even if on account of dismissal of the SLP preferred against the said Order/Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, having not merged with the Order/Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court, the Order/Judgment dated 16.11.2018 of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Smt. Asha Devi (supra) shall bind not only the parties to that Writ Petition but also the respondents herein as they were the respondents in the case before this Tribunal and they were the petitioners before the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Smt. Asha Devi (supra). In this regard, we may place reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd, Kollegal, reported in (2019) 4 SCC 376, in para 26 of which the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled as under:-
43 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch"26. From a cumulative reading of the various judgments, we sum up the legal position as under:
26.1 The conclusions rendered by the three Judge Bench of this Court in Kanhayammed case6 and summed up in paragraph 44 are affirmed and reiterated.
26.2 We reiterate the conclusions relevant for these cases as under: (Kanhayammed case6, SCC p. 384) "(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed.
(v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties.
(vi) Once leave to appeal has been granted and appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine 44 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation.
(vii) On an appeal having been preferred or a petition seeking leave to appeal having been converted into an appeal before the Supreme Court the jurisdiction of High Court to entertain a review petition is lost thereafter as provided by sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 47 CPC."
26.3 Once we hold that law laid down in Kanhayammed case6 is to be followed, it will not make any difference whether the review petition was filed before the filing of special leave petition or was filed after the dismissal of special leave petition. Such a situation is covered in para 37 of Kanhayammed case6."
16. On perusal of the aforesaid Order/Judgment of this Tribunal and the Order/Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Smt. Asha Devi (supra), it is evident that the same were passed keeping in view the relevant policy related to the options given to the employee similar to the applicants in the present OAs on merit and in no manner on account of sympathy or compassion. Accordingly, the Order/Judgment of the learned Single Bench as modified by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Smt. Asha Devi (supra) shall be binding for this Tribunal, we are of the considered view that the same binds the 45 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch Single Bench(es), the Division Bench(es) and/or the Full Bench(es)/Larger Bench(es) of this Tribunal and this is not open for this Tribunal to go into the correctness of the Order/Judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court. In support of our such view, we may place reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and others, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1, wherein their Lordships have considered their own judgments in various cases on the point of rule of judicial discipline, judicial propriety and doctrine of binding precedent, as can be evident from paras 78 to 92 of such judgment, which are reproduced as under:-
"78. There have been several instances of different Benches of the High Courts not following the judgments/orders of coordinate and even larger Benches. In some cases, the High Courts have gone to the extent of ignoring the law laid down by this Court without any tangible reason. Likewise, there have been instances in which smaller Benches of this Court have either ignored or bypassed the ratio of the judgments of the larger Benches including the Constitution Benches. These cases are illustrative of non-adherence to the rule of judicial discipline which is sine qua non for sustaining the system. In Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator General of W.B. [AIR 1960 SC 936 : (1960) 3 SCR 578] this Court observed: (AIR p. 941, para 19) 46 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch "19. ... If one thing is more necessary in law than any other thing, it is the quality of certainty. That quality would totally disappear if Judges of coordinate jurisdiction in a High Court start overruling one another's decisions. If one Division Bench of a High Court is unable to distinguish a previous decision of another Division Bench, and holding the view that the earlier decision is wrong, itself gives effect to that view the result would be utter confusion. The position would be equally bad where a Judge sitting singly in the High Court is of opinion that the previous decision of another Single Judge on a question of law is wrong and gives effect to that view instead of referring the matter to a larger Bench. In such a case lawyers would not know how to advise their clients and all courts subordinate to the High Court would find themselves in an embarrassing position of having to choose between dissentient judgments of their own High Court."
(emphasis added)
79. In Lala Shri Bhagwan v. Ram Chand [AIR 1965 SC 1767] Gajendragadkar, C.J. observed: (AIR p. 1773, para 18) "18. ... It is hardly necessary to emphasise that considerations of judicial propriety and decorum require that if a learned Single Judge hearing a matter is inclined to take the view that the earlier decisions of the High Court, whether of a Division Bench or of a Single Judge, need to be reconsidered, he should not embark upon that enquiry sitting as a Single Judge, but should refer the matter to a Division Bench or, in a proper case, place the relevant papers before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question. That is the proper and traditional way 47 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch to deal with such matters and it is founded on healthy principles of judicial decorum and propriety. It is to be regretted that the learned Single Judge departed from this traditional way in the present case and chose to examine the question himself."
80. In Union of India v. Raghubir Singh [(1989) 2 SCC 754] R.S. Pathak, C.J. while recognising need for constant development of law and jurisprudence emphasised the necessity of abiding by the earlier precedents in the following words: (SCC p. 766, para
9) "9. The doctrine of binding precedent has the merit of promoting a certainty and consistency in judicial decisions, and enables an organic development of the law, besides providing assurance to the individual as to the consequence of transactions forming part of his daily affairs. And, therefore, the need for a clear and consistent enunciation of legal principle in the decisions of a court."
81. In Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija v. Collector, Thane [(1989) 3 SCC 396] a two-Judge Bench observed as under: (SCC p. 407, para 22) "22. ... In our system of judicial review which is a part of our constitutional scheme, we hold it to be the duty of Judges of superior courts and tribunals to make the law more predictable. The question of law directly arising in the case should not be dealt with apologetic approaches. The law must be made more effective as a guide to behaviour. It must be determined with reasons which carry convictions within the courts, profession and public. Otherwise, the lawyers would be in a predicament and would not know how to advise their clients. Subordinate courts would find 48 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch themselves in an embarrassing position to choose between the conflicting opinion. The general public would be in dilemma to obey or not to obey such law and it ultimately falls into disrepute."
82. In Vijay Laxmi Sadho (Dr.) v. Jagdish [(2001) 2 SCC 247] this Court considered whether the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court could ignore the judgment of a coordinate Bench on the same issue and held: (SCC p. 256, para 33) "33. As the learned Single Judge was not in agreement with the view expressed in Devilal case [Devilal v. Kinkar Narmada Prasad, Election Petition No. 9 of 1980 (MP)] it would have been proper, to maintain judicial discipline, to refer the matter to a larger Bench rather than to take a different view. We note it with regret and distress that the said course was not followed. It is well settled that if a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction disagrees with another Bench of coordinate jurisdiction whether on the basis of 'different arguments' or otherwise, on a question of law, it is appropriate that the matter be referred to a larger Bench for resolution of the issue rather than to leave two conflicting judgments to operate, creating confusion. It is not proper to sacrifice certainty of law. Judicial decorum, no less than legal propriety forms the basis of judicial procedure and it must be respected at all costs."
83. In Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik [(2002) 1 SCC 1] the Constitution Bench noted that the two learned Judges denuded the correctness of an earlier Constitution Bench judgment in Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Mumbai Shramik Sangha [(2001) 4 SCC 448] and reiterated 49 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch the same despite the fact that the second Constitution Bench refused to reconsider the earlier verdict and observed: (Pradip Chandra Parija case [(2002) 1 SCC 1] , SCC pp. 3-4, paras 3 & 5-6) "3. We may point out, at the outset, that in Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Mumbai Shramik Sangha [(2001) 4 SCC 448] a Bench of five Judges considered a somewhat similar question. Two learned Judges in that case doubted the correctness of the scope attributed to a certain provision in an earlier Constitution Bench judgment and, accordingly, referred the matter before them directly to a Constitution Bench. The Constitution Bench that then heard the matter took the view that the decision of a Constitution Bench binds a Bench of two learned Judges and that judicial discipline obliges them to follow it, regardless of their doubts about its correctness. At the most, the Bench of two learned Judges could have ordered that the matter be heard by a Bench of three learned Judges.
***
5. The learned Attorney General submitted that a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court was binding on smaller Benches and a judgment of three learned Judges was binding on Benches of two learned Judges -- a proposition that learned counsel for the appellants did not dispute. The learned Attorney General drew our attention to the judgment of a Constitution Bench in Sub- Committee of Judicial Accountability v. Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 97] where it has been said that 'no coordinate Bench of this Court can even comment upon, let alone sit in judgment over, the discretion exercised or judgment rendered in a cause or matter before another coordinate Bench-- (SCC p. 98, para 5). The learned 50 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch Attorney General submitted that the appropriate course for the Bench of two learned Judges to have adopted, if it felt so strongly that the judgment in Nityananda Kar [Nityananda Kar v. State of Orissa, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 576 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 177 :
(1992) 19 ATC 236] was incorrect, was to make a reference to a Bench of three learned Judges.
That Bench of three learned Judges, if it also took the same view of Nityananda Kar [Nityananda Kar v. State of Orissa, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 576 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 177 :
(1992) 19 ATC 236] , could have referred the case to a Bench of five learned Judges.
6. In the present case the Bench of two learned Judges has, in terms, doubted the correctness of a decision of a Bench of three learned Judges. They have, therefore, referred the matter directly to a Bench of five Judges. In our view, judicial discipline and propriety demands that a Bench of two learned Judges should follow a decision of a Bench of three learned Judges. But if a Bench of two learned Judges concludes that an earlier judgment of three learned Judges is so very incorrect that in no circumstances can it be followed, the proper course for it to adopt is to refer the matter before it to a Bench of three learned Judges setting out, as has been done here, the reasons why it could not agree with the earlier judgment. If, then, the Bench of three learned Judges also comes to the conclusion that the earlier judgment of a Bench of three learned Judges is incorrect, reference to a Bench of five learned Judges is justified."
(emphasis supplied)
84. In State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer [(2003) 5 SCC 448] the Court elaborately considered the principle of per incuriam and held that the earlier judgment by a 51 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch larger Bench cannot be ignored by invoking the principle of per incuriam and the only course open to the coordinate or smaller Bench is to make a request for reference to the larger Bench.
85. In State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. [(2004) 11 SCC 26] the Court reiterated that if a coordinate Bench does not agree with the principles of law enunciated by another Bench, the matter has to be referred to a larger Bench.
86. In Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 2 SCC 673 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 246 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 546] the Constitution Bench interpreted Article 141, referred to various earlier judgments including Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Mumbai Shramik Sangha [(2001) 4 SCC 448] and Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik [(2002) 1 SCC 1] and held that the law laid down in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength and it would be inappropriate if a Division Bench of two Judges starts overruling the decisions of Division Benches of three Judges. The Court further held that such a practice would be detrimental not only to the rule of discipline and the doctrine of binding precedents but it will also lead to inconsistency in decisions on the point of law; consistency and certainty in the development of law and its contemporary status -- both would be immediate casualty (Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community case [(2005) 2 SCC 673 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 246 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 546] , SCC p. 682, paras 12 & 10).
87. In State of U.P. v. Jeet S. Bisht [(2007) 6 SCC 586] when one of the Hon'ble Judges (Katju, J.) constituting the Bench criticised the orders passed 52 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch by various Benches in the same case, the other Hon'ble Judge (Sinha, J.) expressed himself in the following words: (SCC p. 623, para 100) "100. For the views been taken herein, I regret to express my inability to agree with Brother Katju, J. in regard to the criticisms of various orders passed in this case itself by other Benches. I am of the opinion that it is wholly inappropriate to do so. One Bench of this Court, it is trite, does not sit in appeal over the other Bench particularly when it is a coordinate Bench. It is equally inappropriate for us to express total disagreement in the same matter as also in similar matters with the directions and observations made by the larger Bench. Doctrine of judicial restraint, in my opinion, applies even in this realm. We should not forget other doctrines which are equally developed viz. judicial discipline and respect for the Brother Judges."
88. In U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh v. Daya Ram Saroj [(2007) 2 SCC 138 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 773] the Court noted that by ignoring the earlier decision of a coordinate Bench, a Division Bench of the High Court directed that part-time tubewell operators should be treated as permanent employees with same service conditions as far as possible and observed: (SCC p. 149, para 26) "26. Judicial discipline is self-discipline. It is an inbuilt mechanism in the system itself. Judicial discipline demands that when the decision of a coordinate Bench of the same High Court is brought to the notice of the Bench, it is to be respected and is binding, subject of course, to the right to take a different view or to doubt the correctness of the decision and the permissible course then open is to refer the 53 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch question or the case to a larger Bench. This is the minimum discipline and decorum to be maintained by judicial fraternity."
89. It is interesting to note that in Coir Board v. Indira Devi P.S. [(1998) 3 SCC 259 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 806] , a two-Judge Bench doubted the correctness of the seven-Judge Bench judgment in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa [(1978) 2 SCC 213 : 1978 SCC (L&S) 215] and directed the matter to be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench. However, a three-Judge Bench headed by Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J., refused to entertain the reference and observed that the two-Judge Bench is bound by the judgment of the larger Bench--Coir Board v. Indira Devai P.S. [(2000) 1 SCC 224 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 120]
90. We are distressed to note that despite several pronouncements on the subject, there is substantial increase in the number of cases involving violation of the basics of judicial discipline. The learned Single Judges and Benches of the High Courts refuse to follow and accept the verdict and law laid down by coordinate and even larger Benches by citing minor difference in the facts as the ground for doing so. Therefore, it has become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to the constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and certainty is an important hallmark of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country in the last six decades and increase in the frequency of conflicting judgments of the superior judiciary will do incalculable harm to the system inasmuch as the courts at the grass roots will not be able to decide as to which of the judgments lay down the correct law and which one should be followed.
54 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch91. We may add that in our constitutional set-up every citizen is under a duty to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions. Those who have been entrusted with the task of administering the system and operating various constituents of the State and who take oath to act in accordance with the Constitution and uphold the same, have to set an example by exhibiting total commitment to the constitutional ideals. This principle is required to be observed with greater rigour by the members of judicial fraternity who have been bestowed with the power to adjudicate upon important constitutional and legal issues and protect and preserve rights of the individuals and society as a whole. Discipline is sine qua non for effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system. If the courts command others to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and rule of law, it is not possible to countenance violation of the constitutional principle by those who are required to lay down the law.
92. In the light of what has been stated above, we deem it proper to clarify that the comments and observations made by the two-Judge Bench in U.P. SEB v. Pooran Chandra Pandey [(2007) 11 SCC 92 :
(2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 736] should be read as obiter and the same should neither be treated as binding by the High Courts, tribunals and other judicial foras nor they should be relied upon or made basis for bypassing the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench."
17. The issue as to the precedential effect to observation(s) and clarification(s) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which provides that though the special leave 55 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch petition is dismissed but the question of law is kept open, came up for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedahad in Special Civil Application No. 19456 of 2016, titled Hemal Ishwarbhai Patel vs. Veer Narmad South Gujarat University and others, reported in (2017) 2 GLH 76, the Hon'ble High Court after considering various judgments on the issue ruled in paras 20 to 26 reproduced as under:-
"20. The question as to the precedential effect of the observation and clarification of the Supreme Court when it in its order provides that though the Special Leave Petition is dismissed but question of law is kept open, was considered by the binding Division Bench judgment of this Court in Collector v. Liquidator-Petrofills Cooperative Limited being Miscellaneous Civil Application (For Review) No. 1412 of 2015 decided on 23rd October, 2015.
21. A clear answer is provided from the discussion from paragraph 26 to 28, reproduced hereinbelow.
"The question therefore is, in the present case was the SLP dismissed by citing reasons or was a simplicitor order of dismissal. We have reproduced the order of SLP in the earlier portion of this judgment. The order records that on facts of this case, the Court was not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. While therefore, dismissing the SLP the Court proceeded to observe However, the question of law is kept open. In our understanding neither the expression that on the facts of the case, the Court was not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 or that the question of law is 56 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch kept open, would indicate the reasons for not entertaining the SLP. As has been observed in case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [(2000) 6 SCC 359] and Gangadhara Palo v. Revenue Divisional Officer [(2011) 4 SCC 602], SLP can be dismissed for variety of grounds, could be on the ground of delay, latches, equity or simply because the Supreme Court thinks in a given set of facts, it is not appropriate to exercise discretionary power to entertain the SLP. The thrust of the order was that the Court was not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. Mere expression of disinclination coined in a slightly different phraseology does not amount to giving reasons."
(Para 26)
22. The Division Bench next stated-
"Further the expression question of law is kept open would only guard against any future contention that the Supreme Court had confirmed the ratio of the judgement under challenge whereby either giving rise to a possible contention of merger or that even in future cases, Supreme Court would be precluded from considering such an issue in better facts."
(Para 26)
23. It was elaborated and explained-
"When the Supreme Court records that the question of law is kept open, undoubtedly it is meant to be reconsidered in future by the Supreme Court only. The question of law, as correctly contended by Shri P. Chidambaram, is not kept open for the High Court. This is precisely what was held and observed by the Division Bench of this Court in an unreported decision in Tax Appeal No. 380/2013 dated 9/12/2013. We are in full agreement with the view expressed therein. It was a case where an issue of unabsorbed depreciation under section 32(2) of the Income Tax 57 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch Act, 1961, was raised by the Revenue before the High Court. An identical issue was already decided by the High Court in case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj) by allowing the appeal of the assessee and setting aside the order of the Commissioner. The judgement of the High Court was carried in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP making it clear that the question of law is kept open. When a similar question came up before the High Court in the Tax Appeal, the Revenue argued that when the Supreme Court has left the question of law open, it would be open for the High Court to reconsider the issue regardless of the judgement of another Division Bench in case of General Motors Pvt.
Ltd. (supra). It was in this background, Division Bench made the following observations:
"(10) Now so far as the submission made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue that though against the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), as such, Special Leave to Appeal was preferred before the Honble Supreme Court and the same came to be dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court on the ground of delay and kept the question of law open, this Court may consider the question of law raised on merits is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. It is required to be noted that as such, consideration of the question raised with respect to set off of unabsorbed depreciation on merits, there is a direct decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra). Against the said decision, the Special Leave to Appeal was preferred and 58 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch the same came to be dismissed on the ground of delay and the Honble Supreme Court kept the question of law open.
Therefore, it can not be said that the said question of law is kept open by the Honble Supreme Court to consider subsequently by this Court Coordinate Bench. It can be said that the said question of law is kept open by the Honble Supreme Court to consider subsequently in other cases by the Honble Supreme Court. So far as this Court is concerned, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) is binding unless a contrary view is taken and the matter is referred to the Larger Bench. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) which has been relied upon by the learned ITAT while passing the impugned judgment and order, as such, no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises now."
(Para 27)
24. The Division Bench ruled about correct legal position thus-
"We are in full agreement with the view so expressed and in our understanding brings about a correct legal position. When a question of law is kept open by the Supreme Court not entertaining a SLP against the judgement of the High Court, in fact, what is done is neither to confirm nor to dilute the ratio of the judgement under challenge. That however, does not mean that the High Court in a future case is allowed to take a fresh view ignoring the law of precedence. It only means that the Supreme Court refused to bind itself or put its seal on 59 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch the ratio propounded by the High Court in the judgement under challenge. Therefore, when an identical question comes up before the same High Court and is presented for consideration before a Bench of coordinate strength, by virtue of principles of law of precedence, the Bench would be bound by the ratio of the earlier judgement of the High Court, unless persuaded to refer it to a larger Bench. This is precisely what has been recorded by the Division Bench in the said case and this is why the Bench was of the opinion that it had either to follow the ratio in case of General Motors or make a reference to the larger Bench. This per-se however, would not mean that the review consideration is shut out, if the review is otherwise maintainable. Normally, in almost all the cases, the same Bench would be reconsidering the matter on the grounds raised in the review petition. If in the process, it is found that the proposition of law laid down suffers from some error apparent on face of the record, review certainly would be available. In other words, if a decision has become final, it would continue to bind the Bench of coordinate strength of the same High Court in future though in SLP the Supreme Court it might have been observed that the question of law is kept open. But when a review petition comes before the same Bench, it is the judgement in review which is being criticised. It would have the same limitations as in any other case of review where SLP may not have been filed. Nothing more nothing less. In other words, the expression question of law is kept open does not put any additional fetters on the High Court exercising review powers."
(Para 28)
25. As recorded above, by comparing the facts on record, the theory that the present case offers different facts could hardly be countenanced. Nor 60 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch the aspect of special feature of case hold good. As noticed from the comparison of facts of both the case, they were similar wherein both the students were proceeded in same way on similar nature of charge. The principle of 'no evidence' and the attended reasoning supplied by the Division Bench apply to the present case with equal force.
26. When the Apex Court does not entertain any Special Leave Petition while observing that it was keeping the question of law decided to be kept open, such question would be treated to have been left open for the Supreme Court only. As far as the High Court is concerned, it woudl be bound by the judgment not interfered with in the Special Leave Petition as per the law of precedence. In the subsequent case with similar facts and identical issue, the decision not interfered with by the Supreme Court would bind and the different view would be prohibited to be taken on the spacious ground that the question of law kept open, which was the liberty reserved by the Supreme Court for itself only. Therefore, in the instant case when Division Bench judgment in Siddharth Ashvinbhai Parekh (supra) was left untouched by the Supreme Court but the question of law was kept open, in the subsequent case considered by this Court where the facts were even otherwise found to be similar and the issue identical, this Court is bound by the decision in Siddharth Ashvinbhai Parekh (supra)."
18. We have also gone through the judgments referred to and relied upon by Shri Satish Kumar, learned counsel, one of the learned advocates appearing for the respondents which we have noted in para 11 hereinabove. In the case of P. Bandopadhya 61 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch (supra), the appellants were erstwhile employees in the Overseas Communications Service ('OCS'), a Department of the Government of India converted into a Government Company as Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited ('VSNL').
Initially, all the employees of the erstwhile OSC were transferred en masse to VSNL (subsequently known as Tata Communications Limited), where they worked on deputation from April 1, 1986 to January 1, 1990. In July 1989, the Government of India, through Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare issued Office Memorandum specifying the terms and conditions governing the pensionary benefits of employees who were transferred en masse. Admittedly, the facts and circumstances of the case were entirely different from those of the cases in hand. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Bandopadhya (supra) was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Premakumari etc. etc. (supra). Moreover, in that case also, option as referred to in the cases in hand was not the subject matter as well as certain other facts were also different from those in the cases in hand. We are of the considered view the judgments in P. Bandopadhya (supra) as well as in K. Premakumari etc. etc. (supra) do 62 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch not support the stand taken by the respondents in the instant matters. So far as the reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kunhayammed (supra) is concerned, we find that the same has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (supra) referred to hereinabove.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussions, authoritative pronouncements by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Hon'ble High Courts,
(i) the answer to reference in Para 11 (1) of the common Order dated 03.08.2023 of the learned Division Bench in the captioned OAs and as reproduced in Para 1 hereinabove is 'No',
(ii) the answer to reference in Para 11 (2) of the common Order dated 03.08.2023 of the learned Division Bench in the captioned OAs and reproduced in para 1 hereinabove is 'Yes'; &
(iii) the answer to reference in para 11 (3) of the common Order dated 03.08.2023 of the learned Division Bench in the captioned OAs and reproduced in pra 1 hereinabove is that the grant of relief to the applicants in 63 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch the captioned OAs shall be considered, keeping in view the facts and prayer(s) in the respective captioned OAs keeping in view and in the light of Order/Judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Asha Devi (supra) as upheld/modified by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
20. The captioned OAs are remitted back to the learned Division Bench for further order/judgment in the captioned OAs on merit.
(Manish Garg) (Anand Mathur) (R.N. Singh) Member (J) Member (A) Member (J) /ravi/