Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam

P.Karunakaran vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 8 April, 2011

      

  

  

           CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
                     ERNAKULAM BENCH

                           R.A.No.45/10
                                 in
               Original Application No. 150 of 2009


              Friday, this the 8th day of April, 2011

CORAM:

   Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.R. Raman, Judicial Member
   Hon'ble Ms.K Noorjehan, Administrative Member

1.   P.Karunakaran
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Kannur.

2.   T.Kannan
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Telephone Exchange
     Poovam, Kannur District

3.   T.Purushothaman
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Telephone Bhavan
     Kasargod

4.   P.Mahalinga Bhat
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Telephone Exchange, Kumabala
     Kasargod District

5.   B Suresh
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Telephone Exchange
     Chengala, Kasargod

6.   A Raghavan
     Telecom Technical Assistant (Retired)
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Telephone Exchange
     Sreekandapuram, Kannur District

7.   P.M Damodharan
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Telephone Exchange
     Koothuparambu, Kasargod District

8.   C.H Mohanan
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     City Telephone Exchange
     Kannur

9.   T.T Janardhanan
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Telephone Bhavan
     Kannur

10.  P.J Jose
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Thalayolaparambu
     Kottayam District

11.  P.A Cherian
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     E 10 B Telephone Exchange
     Power Plant, Kottayam District

12.  K.N Rajendran
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Telephone Exchange
     Koottikkal, Kottayam District

13.  Thomas Sebastian
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Telephone Exchange
     Mukkoottuthara, Erumely
     Kottayam District

14.  P.M James
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Telephone Exchange
     Peringalam, Kottayam District

15.  G.M Joseph
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Telephone Exchange
     Uzhavoor, Kottayam District

16.  Rani Abraham
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Telephone Exchange
     Manimala, Kottayam District

17.  Dai Jose
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Telephone Exchange
     Ayarkunnam, Kottayam District

18.  K.S Satheesan
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Telephone Exchange
     Aranmula, Alappuzha District

19.  T.M Philip
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Telephone Exchange
     Kozhencherry
     Pathanamthitta District

20.  K.R Rajendran
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Telephone Exchange
     Kadampanad
     Pathanamthitta District

21.  B.Shaji
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Telephone Exchange
     Adoor, Pathanamthitta District

22.  M.M Divakaran Nair
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Telephone Exchange
     Vazhankulam, Ernakulam District

23.  Stanley Joseph
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Carrier Station, Ernakulam District
     Kochi - 682 016

24.  S.J Paul
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Cell One Operation and Maintenance Centre
     Panampilly Nagar, Kochi - 682 036

25.  P.G Sadasivan Achari
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Pathanamthitta

26.  K.C Accamma
     Telecom Technical Assistant
     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     Kumarakam Exchange
     Kottayam - 686 563

27.     Abraham V John
        Telecom Technical Assistant
        Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
        Chelad, Ernakulam District

28.     Jose K Varghese
        Telecom Technical Assistant
        Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
        Chathamattom, Ernakulam District.   .....  Applicants

(By Advocate - Mr.C.S.G Nair)

                               V e r s u s

1.      Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
        Represented its Chairman cum
        Managing Director
        Sanchar Bhavan, Parliament Street
        New Delhi

2.      The Chief General Manager
        Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
        Kerala Circle, Trivandrum - 1

3.      The General Manager
        Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
        Kannur SSA, Kannur

4.      The Principal General Manager
        Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
        Kottayam SSA, Kottayam
5.      The General Manager
        Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
        Thiruvalla
6.      The Principal General Manager
        Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
        Ernakulam SSA, Kochi - 682 031
7.      The Department of Telecom
        Represented by its Secretary
        Sanchar Bhavan, 20 Ashoka Road
        New Delhi - 1               .....          Respondents

(By Advocate - Mr. Johnson Gomez)

      This Original Application having been heard on 30.03.2011, the Tribunal

on 08.04.2011day delivered the following:

                              O R D E R

By Hon'ble Ms.K Noorjehan, Administrative Member

1. The applicants have filed this Review Application seeking to review and clarify the observations made in para 6 of the order of this Tribunal dated 20.10.2010 in Original Application No. 150/2010. In the Original Application the applicants sought a direction to the respondents to grant OTBP/BCR Promotion to the applicants who have completed 16/26 years of service and 12 years in the case of reserved candidates and to grant higher pay scales to those applicants who were already granted OTBP/BCR promotion, with effect from the date they were granted OTBP/BCR, with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances. This was the subject matter in the Writ Petition W.P.(c) No.30313/2006 and W.P(c).No.3433/2007 filed before the High Court of Kerala, which was disposed of by a judgment dated 18.03.2008. Relevant paragraphs 4,5,6 and 7 are extracted below:-

"4. The stand taken by the respondents therefore, is that the higher pay scale which was decided consequent upon the formation of BSNL was not linked to OTBP/BCR policy and therefore OTBP/BCR pay scales cannot be made applicable to the re-structured cadres as it was done in the case of the pre- restructured cadre. I find force in this submission. After all, higher grade is always decided taking note of the pay scale available. Therefore, if the higher pay scale which apparently was brought into vogue under the new dispensation, was in relation to the re-
structured cadre, then in the absence of specific orders providing for the application of OTBP/BCR pay schemes in relation to the re- structured cadre, it cannot be directed to be given as a matter of course.
5. I cannot, therefore, find my way to issue a direction as sought for by the petitioners as such. But nevertheless, it is always open to the respondents to pass fresh orders taking note of the delay in the adoption of standing orders as part of the Promotion Policy and further take note of the stagnation of several TTA's without chances of cadre promotion as such.
6. In the result, writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms.
7. Respondents shall look into the grievance highlighted by the petitioners in Ext.P.17 in Writ Petition No.3433/2007 and Ext.P16 in Writ Petition No.30313/2006 and convey a decision thereon within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Such decision may be taken without being bound by the stand that has been taken in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the acceptability of the demand made by the petitioners in this regard. "

2. It was in compliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court that the impugned order Annexure A-9 in the Original Application was issued by the respondents. The respondents did not concede the demand of the applicants on the ground that " the induction to the Restuctured cadres started in the year 1994. The special dispensation of higher pay scales prescribed under DOT letters No.1-38/98-MPP dated 20.04.99 and 20.09.99 have been granted to all the officials of the Restructured cadre on their completion of 16/26 years, of service including the service rendered in the Pre- restructured cadre. As such grant of OTBP/BCR to such officials would amount to double benefits to the restructured officials. "

3. This was referred to in para 6 of the order of this Tribunal besides the on going negotiations with the service Union regarding promotion policy for non-
executive staff, the first review of up-gradation of pay scales on 01.10.2004 etc. During the pendency of the Original Application the respondents announced the non-executive promotion policy dated 23.03.2010 produced by the applicants as Annexure A-20. Paragraph 5 of Annexure A-20 gives terms and conditions to exercise the option to continue in the erstwhile time bound promotion scheme if an employee so desires. The respondents produced Annexure R-2 which gave elaborate clarification so as to guide the staff in exercising option. In fact for those who exercised option Number 1 under option Form 1 one more option in form 2 was permitted to be given which has to be exercised as per the conditions of para 6.4 of the promotion policy. The time given for exercising option was also reported to be extended. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal found that in view of the adoption of the Non-
Executive Promotion Policy it is for the applicants to exercise their options and institute legal proceedings if they are still aggrieved.
4. In this view of the matter, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the records. Accordingly the Review application is dismissed.

                     (Dated this the 8th day of April, 2011)



(K. NOORJEHAN)                                        (JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER                                    JUDICIAL MEMBER
sv