Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Hukam Chand vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 29 January, 2019
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
1
O.A.060/00005/2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Pronounced on : 29.01.2019
Reserved on : 22.01.2019
OA No. 060/00005/2014
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE MRS. P. GOPINATH, MEMBER(A)
Hukam Chand, retired senior Telegraph Master, Telegraph Office,
Ferozepur Cantt., son of Sh. Gobind Ram, resident of Quarter No. 10,
Sethi Ice Factory, Ferozepur Cantt.
......................Applicant
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Barjesh Mittal for Sh. P.K. Bansal
Versus
1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through its Chairman and
Managing Director, 20-Ashoka Road, New Delhi
2. The Chief General Manager Telecom, Punjab Circle, Sector
34/A, Chandigarh.
3. The General Manager, Telecom, Ferozepur.
..................Respondents
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Rajesh Gupta
ORDER
MRS. P. GOPINATH, MEMBER(A):-
1. This is a matter which has been remanded back by the High Court to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication in the light of three posers as follows:-2
O.A.060/00005/2014
(i) whether the policy decision of 2003 was implemented and remained in force till different policy decision was taken in the year 2011? If so, whether the petitioner fulfilled the eligibility conditions contained in the above-stated Circular dated 18.11.2003?
(ii) whether similarly-placed employees were given the benefit of one extra increment under the Circular dated 18.11.2003, and if so, does it amount to discrimination with the petitioner?
(iii) whether the fresh policy decision was taken in the year 2011, and if so, can it be applied retrospectively?
2. The applicant is a person aggrieved by the order dated 09.12.2014 passed by this Bench whereby his claim for grant of benefit of one increment w.e.f. 30.09.2004 and for consequential retiral benefits was turned down by the Tribunal. The applicant was an employee of respondent BSNL and at the time of retirement on 30.09.2005, held the post of Senior Telegraph Master which is a BCR Group III post. On 18.11.2003 (Annexure A-1), BSNL issued a circular stating that one extra increment in BCR Grade III may be given one year prior to retirement without benefit of FR 22-C to those Group 'C' officials who are in BCR Grade III and not in a position to get Grade IV promotion. Certain terms and conditions were laid down for grant of this extra increment which are as follows:-
(i) This will be applicable only tho those cadres, which are covered under OTBP/BCR Scheme and only those officials who have been absorbed in BSNL.
(ii) The officials should have earned at least one increment in BCR Grade III i.e. he/she must have completed at least one year of regular qualifying service in BCR Grade III.
(iii) This benefit is being given in appreciation of the long years of good service rendered by an official and hence claim of this benefit on any other ground will not be entertained. The fitness of the official for getting benefit of one extra increment will be judged by a Screening Committed headed by appointing authority. The 3 O.A.060/00005/2014 screening is to be held in advance so that benefit is extended from the due date. In case any official, who had been given an extra increment under this scheme, subsequently become eligible promoted to Grade IV due to any reason, such official would have to exercise option at the time of promotion either retention of the extra increment or for Grade IV promotion. If the official on account of the extra increment would have to be refunded or to be adjusted accordingly.
(iv) In the case of official who have preferred representation or filed cases in any court of law, claiming for Grade IV promotion on any ground, the benefit of this Scheme will not be extended to such officials till the finalization of representation/court case.
(v) The Scheme of extra increment will be effective from 01.06.2003.
Hence, the official retiring after 01.06.2003, will get the financial benefit from the date only. This extra increment will be counted for the pensionary and other retirement benefit purposes. The applicant claims that he fulfilled all the conditions as stipulated in above circular and hence was entitled to grant of one extra increment in BCR Grade II as he had one year for his retirement. His claim was turned down in the year 2011. He challenged the order and the Tribunal dismissed the OA on the ground that Central Government had not approved the decision of BSNL and being a policy decision, applicant cannot claim the benefit as a matter of right.
3. The respondents in their affidavit dated 18.09.2018 submitted the following answers to the questions formulated by the Hon'ble High Court:-
(i) The policy decision of 2003 was implemented and remained in force till 23.02.2010. On 23.03.2010, non-executive promotion policy was introduced.
(ii) The applicant fulfilled the eligibility condition stipulated in the 18.11.2013 circular but since the proposal is having financial implication, it remained pending for approval of department of Telecommunication till 04.11.2011, when finally it was not agreed to by the competent authority.4
O.A.060/00005/2014
(iii) No similarly placed employee was given the benefit of one extra increment under the circular of 18.11.2003.
(iv) No fresh policy decision was taken in the year 2011. However, a clarification of the circular dated 18.11.2003 was issued. The applicant argues that no prior approval of the Central Government was required.
4. The respondents in the clarification to the posers raised by the Hon'ble High Court clearly submit that the office order of 18.11.2003 was issued with the approval of the competent authority, BSNL Board and no prior approval of the Central Government was required. The respondents therefore admit that BSNL Board is competent to approve the proposal. However, the OM granting extra increment was never acted upon and the said benefit was not given to any similarly placed person giving rise to a cause of action or discrimination against the applicant.
5. In reply to the second poser of the High Court, no similarly placed employees were given the benefit of 18.11.2003 extra increment and hence the applicant was not discriminated.
6. In reply to the third poser of the High Court, it is clarified that no fresh policy decision was taken in the year 2011. Rather, the Department of Telecommunications which was consulted, as the matter apparently was having the financial implications which required budgetary support, the proposal of the grant of extra increment under the BCR Scheme was not agreed to or implemented. Hence, the Circular of 18.11.2003 remained in paper only and was not implemented in respect of any beneficiary.
5
O.A.060/00005/2014
7. In view of the fact that nobody received the benefits of the extra increment, the applicant cannot be isolated for the grant of the same. Hence, the OA, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. No costs.
(P. GOPINATH) MEMBER (A) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (J) Dated:
ND*