Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
N Kuppusamy vs Bsnl on 7 February, 2024
i) 1 of 11 OA 528/2022 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MADRAS BENCH O0.A: No. 310/00528 of 2022 a DATED THE Ag OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SHRI MANISH GARG, MEMBER(J) THE HON'BLE SHRI VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, MEMBER (A) N. Kuppusamy [HR No.19200220], S/o. Nallasamy, 71, Bharathi Nagar 3 Main Street, Moolapalayam, Erode-638 001 (Retired as Sub-Divisional Engineer) 2. K. Songappan, (HR No. 198400408), S/o. Karuppan, B-57, Telecom Staff Quarters, Moolapalayam, Erode- 638 002, (Retired as Telecom Technician); C. Viswanathan, (HR 197600678), S/o. A. Chettiappa Chettiar, 93, Selvam Nagar 3" Street, Kumalan Kuttai, Erode-638 001. (Retired as Sub-Divisional Engineer); 4. N. Athiyappan; (HR o. 198302122), S/o, Nalla Goundan, 188/8, Maruthi Nagar, Thindal, Erode-638 012 (Retired as Telecom Technician);; Asus NT | a, 2of Ll OA 528/2022 N. Manoharan, (HR No.197600442), s/o. Nachimuthu, No. C-31, Transport Nagar, Lakkapuram Post, Erode- 638 002 (Retired as Junior Telecom Officer); S. Rangarajan (HR No. 198000743}, S/o. S. Swaminathan, No. 122/19/4, Appachi Nagar 2™ Street, Bharathipalayam, Railway Colony P.O., Erode- 638 002. . (Retired as a Sub- Divisioinal Engineer); M. Nachimuthu, (HR No. 198400744) S/o. E.M. Manickam, No. 181/2, Kumaran Nagar, C.R. Palayam (P.0,), Dharapuram (TK), Tiruppur District- 638 657 (Retired as Office Superintendent); A. Ignatius (HR No. 197901196), S/o. Arokiasamy, No. 179, Annai Nagar, Komarapalayam, Lakkapuram Post, Erode-638 002 (Retired as Telecom Technician). ke veeee Applicant(s) (Advocate: Mis. K. Elango) "V5- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director,, Corporate Office, Harishchandra Mathur Lane, Janpath, NEW DELHI 110 001; 3 of li , OA 528/2022 The Chief General Manager, BSNL, Tamilnadu Telecom Circle, 16, Greams Road, Chennai- 600 006; The Principal General Manager, BSNL, Gandhiji road, Erode- 638 001; The Accounts Offier (Drawal), O/o. The General Manager, BSNL, Gandhiji road, Erode- 638 001. ....Respondent(s) (Advocate: M/s. 8. Udayakumar) 4of 11 OA 528/2022 ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Member (A)) Pursuant to the notification, dated 25.01.2024, the matter was heard in ~ detail, We have heard the learned counsels, Mr.K.Elango for the applicant and Mt.S.Udayakumar for the respondents, and perused the records.
2. This OA has been filed by the applicant, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) To call for the records of the Respondents pertaining to the orders of the 4" Respondent rejecting the applicants claim for one notional increment vide Lr. No. AO(D)/PENSIONERS CORRES/2021-2022/2 dated 09.07.2021; AO(DVPENSIONERS CORRES/2021-2022/14 dated 29.07.2021; AO(D)VPENSIONERS CORRES/2021-
2022/15 dated 29.07.2021; | AO(D)/PENSIONERS CORRES/2021-2022/16 dated 29.07.2021;
AQ(DYPENSIONERS CORRES/2021-2022/17 dated 29.07.2021; AO(D\PENSIONERS CORRES/2021-2022/18 dated 29.07.2021; AO(D)PENSIONERS CORRES/2021- 2022/23 dated 07.08.2021; AO(DVPENSIONERS CORRES/2021-2022/30 dated 18.10.2021 which are filed as Annexure 12 to 19 and to set aside the same; Consequently
b) To direct the respondents to grant one increment for the service rendered by the applicant in the last spell of 12 months prior to their retirement and further direct the respondents to revise and re-fix the service benefits including pensionary benefits of the applicants and to pay the arrears of Pension to them; and 3 of 11 OA 528/2022 ¢} To pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3, The brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, are as under:-
The 1* to 8" applicants entered the service of Postal and Telecom Department on 25.01.1972, 01.04.1984, 04.05.1976, 01.03.1983, 03.05.1976, 03.09.1980, 01.05.1984 and on 26.11.1979, as Time Scale Clerk, Time Scale:
Regular Mazdoor, Telephone Operator, Regular Mazdoor, Telephone Operator, Telephone Operator, Telephone Operator and Line Man, respectively. The Telecom . Department became a Public Sector Undertaking known as the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, with effect from 01.10.2000. The applicant had opted and was absorbed in the BSNL with effect from 01.10.2000. BSNL is a Government of India enterprise. All the applicants, after rendering long years of service, got superannuated on 30.04.2011, 31.01.2017, 31.10.2013, 31.08.2018, 30.11.2014, -
30.09.2018, 30.04.2019 and on 30.09.2015, respectively. The applicants superannuated as Sub-Divisional Engineer, Telecom Technician, Sub-Divisional Engineer, Telecom Technician, Junior Telecom Officer, Sub Divisional Engineer, Office Superintendent (P) and Telephone Mechanic, respectively. Their increments were due from 01.05.2011, 01.02.2017, 01.11.2013, 01.09.2018, 01.12.2014, 01.10.2018, 01.05.2019 and 01.10.2015, respectively. The applicants had drawn their Jast increment on 01.05.2010, 01.02.2016, 01.11.2012, 01.09.2017, :
6o0f 11 OA, 528/2022 01.12.2013, 01.10.2017, 01.05.2018 and 01.10.2014, respectively. The next increment was due for the applicants after completing one full year of service. The applicants, after completing one full year of service, were denied their last annual increment on the ground that they were not on duty on the first day of the month in which their annual increment fell due.
4, It is submitted by the applicants that the respondents failed to consider :
the service of 12 months rendered by the applicants prior to attaining the age of superannuation. The respondents should have considered the fact that the applicants were in service till the previous day of their date of superannuation. The . respondents ought to have paid the applicants the increment which fell due 12 months prior to the date of their superannuation as per the judgment, dated | 17.04.2018, of the Hon'ble Principal Bench of this Tribunal, in O.A. No. 571 of 2017. It is further submitted that the applicants right to get their increment had -
already accrued in their favour since they had completed one full .year of unblemished service, prior to the date of their retirement. The applicants came to know that one P. Ayyamperumal who was denied increment for his last one year spell of service had filed OA/310/00917/2015 before this Tribunal praying for the same relief, but it was dismissed by an order, dated 21.03.2017. Aggrieved by the said order, he had filed W.P. No. 15732 of 2017 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and by an order, dated 15.09.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras .
7 of 11 OA 5328/2022allowed the said O.A. It is further stated by the applicants that aggrieved by the said order, the Customs & Central Excise Department filed SLP (Civil) Dairy No(s). 22283 of 2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, but it was dismissed by an order, dated 23.07.2018. The Department filed a Review Petition - in R.P. (C ) No. 1731 of 2019 in SLP (c ) No. 22008/2018 and the said Review Petition was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by its order, ; dated 08.08.2019. Therefore, it is stated that the applicants are entitled to have the benefit of the said judgment made in W.P. No. 15732 of 2017 by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. It is further submitted that the applicants made representations to the 3 respondent, requesting him to grant one increment for the service rendered in a year and to revise and re-fix their retirement service benefits, including ° pension, by extending the benefit of the order made in the case of P. Ayyamperumal. The 4" respondent did not consider the representations submitted , by the applicants in a proper perspective and by his order rejected their applications stating that the applicants were not on duty on the 1* day of the month in which their annual increment fell due. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants . filed the instant O.A.. seeking the aforesaid relief.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that, as per the:
provisions under Service Rules on the subject, the relief sought by the applicants is not admissible. It is further stated that the case of M. Balasubramanian referred to , 8 of 11 OA 528/2022 by the Hon'ble High Court, in its judgment in A. Ayyamperumal case, is related to the Fundamental Rules of the Tamil Nadu Government where the annual increments are regulated in four quarters, viz., 1' of January, April, July and October whereas for the BSNL employees it is first of every month of the year * throughout, depending upon each individual's case. It is further submitted that the date of increment of an employee, at the time of retirement, is ultimately based on . the option(s) exercised by the employee, in respect of FR 22(1)(a)(i) pay fixation _at the time of his time bound/post based promotions during his career, otherwise their increment date would have become due on some other day. Had the , applicants exercised the said option for pay fixation as on the actual date of increment, their annual increment dates would not have fallen on the next day of their retirement. It is further submitted that applicants' case was not similar and identical to the case of Ayyamperuamal, and, hence, they cannot seek the same | relief by citing the judgement in Ayyamperumal case. The learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the applicants | produced before us a very recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023 (SLP(C) No. 6185/2020), in the case of the Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors, vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., dated 11.04.2023 and submitted that, after considering different decisions rendered by different 0 9 of 11 OA 528/2022 Hon'ble High Courts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had rendered its decision and the - issue therein is squarely applicable to the issue involved in respect of the applicants in the present O.A. The learned counsel for the applicants has further drawn our attention to the operative portion of the judgement, which is extracted hereunder:-
"7, In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the appellants to grant one annual increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day of their service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiently. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court, Under the circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs,"
7, At the outset, the learned counsel! for the applicants submits that, since the issue involved in the present O.A. is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Supra), the applicants would be satisfied if the O.A. is directed to be disposed of by quashing and setting the impugned orders and by. directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the claim of the applicants in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) and extend the benefit of the judgement to the applicants, by passing a redsoned and speaking 10 of 11 OA 528/2022 order within a time frame fixed by the Tribunal.
8. We have gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court (Supra) produced before us by the learned counsel for the applicants.
9. In view of the above, keeping the matter pending before us is not at all desirable and, accordingly, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the OA is disposed of by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders of the 4h. Respondent rejecting the applicants claim for one notional increment, vide Lr. No. AO(D)/PENSIONERS CORRES/2021-2022/2 dated 09.07.2021; AO(D)/PENSIONERS CORRES/2021-2022/14 dated 29.07.2021; | AO(DYPENSIONERS CORRES/2021-2022/15 dated 29.07.2021; AO(D)/PENSIONERS CORRES/2021-2022/16 dated 29.07.2021 ; AO(DYPENSIONERS CORRES/2021-2022/17 dated 29.07.2021; AO(DYPENSIONERS CORRES/2021-2022/18 dated 29.07.2021; - AQ(D)/PENSIONERS CORRES/2021-2022/23 dated 07.08.2021; AO(DYPENSIONERS CORRES/202 1-2022/30 dated 18.10.2021, which are filed as Annexures 12 to 19, respectively. The respondents are directed | to consider and dispose of the claim of the applicants in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023 (SLP(C) No. 6185/2020) in the case of the Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., dated 11.04.2023, (Supra) and extend the benefit of the said li of 11 OA 5328/2022 judgement if the applicants herein are similarly situated as the employees/respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Supra), by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Ordered, accordingly.
10. With the above direction, the O.A. is disposed of. There shall be no order as to-costs.
--_--