Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Hon Ble Shri Justice vs Bsnl & Ors. In Which One Of Us (V.K. Bali on 4 December, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI R.A. NO.196/2009 in O.A. NO.1514/2009 with O.A. NO.2532/2009, M.A. NO.1715/2009; O.A. NO.2393/2009; O.A. NO.2394/2009; O.A. NO.2395/2009; O.A. NO.2913/2009; O.A. NO.362/2009, M.A. NO.262/2009; O.A. NO.754/2009, M.A. NO.514/2009; O.A. NO.2763/2008, M.A. NO.2055/2008; T.A. NO.1013/2009; O.A. NO.277/2009, M.A. NO.909/2009 This the 4th day of December, 2009 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Present: Shri Arun Bhardwaj, counsel for applicant in RA-196/2009 in OA-1514/2009 and counsel for private respondents in all OAs; Ms. Jyoti Singh, counsel for applicant in OA-2532/2009; Shri A. K. Behera, counsel for applicant in OA-2393/2009, 2393/2009, 2394/2009 and 2913/2009; Shri S. A. Syed and Shri Md. Moonis Abbasi, counsel for applicants in OA-362/2009 and 277/2009; Shri R. V. Sinha and shri H. S. Dahiya, counsel for official respondents; Shri K. S. Chauhan, Shri K. C. Lamba, Shri Chand Kiran and Shri Kartar Singh, counsel for applicants in OA-754/2009, OA-2763/2008 and TA-1013/2009. (Memo of parties separately) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
By this common order, we propose to dispose of R.A. No.196/2009 in O.A. No.1514/2009 and ten connected matters bearing O.A. 2532/2009, M.A. 1715/2009; O.A. 2393/2009; O.A. 2394/2009; O.A. 2395/2009; O.A. 2913/2009; O.A. 362/2009, M.A. 262/2009; O.A. 754/2009, M.A. 514/2009; O.A. 2763/2008, M.A. 2055/2008; T.A. 1013/2009; and O.A. 277/2009, M.A. 909/2009.
2. WP (C) No.13898 of 2007 which was initially filed in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, on transfer, came to be numbered as TA No.47/PB/2009 and was disposed of by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 26.5.2009. Nand Lal Jaswal and others, applicants in the TA aforesaid, had sought the following reliefs:
i) that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to give the benefit of order dated 28.9.2006 to the petitioners to retain the seniority P-2 which has already become final.
ii) that writ of prohibition be issued restraining the respondents from going with the further promotion to the post of D.E. on the basis of any other seniority except P-2.
iii) that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to give all such benefits, which have been released to their junior P. V. Mariamma. [ Operative part of the order passed in the TA aforesaid reads as follows:
Therefore, the premise of the respondents in this respect of patently erroneous and, therefore, the order flowing therefrom i.e. Annexure P/9, dated 19.4.2007 is also vitiated on this basis. Since the basis on which the decision at annexure P/9 was taken is erroneous, vide which the representation of the applicants had been rejected, the same is hereby quashed. Consequently, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the applicants and pass fresh orders on the basis of the ratio of aforesaid judgment of Honble Supreme Court of India (Union of India v Madras Telephone SC and ST Social Welfare Association, (1997) 10 SCC 226) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. OA stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Similar OA No.1514/2009 with identical reliefs came to be filed at the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, which was disposed of on 18.8.2009 in the following terms:
It could not be disputed during the course of arguments that this matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Tribunal at Chandigarh Bench in TA No.47/PB/09 (CWP No.13898/07) decided on 26.05.2009 in the matter of Nand Lal Jaswal and Ors. Vs BSNL & Ors. in which one of us (V.K. Bali, chairman) was a Member. We issue same directions in this case as well.
2. OA stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Meanwhile, it appears, some of the employees who might have been affected by the order passed by Chandigarh Bench, but were not parties to the said TA, filed an application seeking review of the order dated 26.5.2009. However, the respondents in the TA filed CWP No.14817/2009 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, and vide order dated 23.9.2009 the High Court stayed operation of the order passed by the Tribunal. Review filed in the TA was disposed of vide order dated 5.11.2009, relevant part whereof reads as follows:
2. Under these circumstances, the R.A. has become infructuous since the matter is now being adjudicated at the level of the Honble High Court. Therefore, the R.A. is dismissed as having become infructuous, by circulation. The Review Applicants are, however, at liberty to approach the appropriate forum, if so advised.
3. What emerges from the facts as mentioned above is that the order passed by the Chandigarh Bench in TA No.47/PB/2009 is no more operative having been stayed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. There would be no need to deal with the present review application, as surely, the decision that may be recorded by the High Court shall be binding, and, be it parties to the TA before the Chandigarh Bench or those who may not be parties to the same, shall have to abide by the decision that may be ultimately delivered by the High Court. There would be no need to deal with the TA/OAs seeking the same relief as was granted by the Chandigarh Bench in TA No.47/PB/2009 and by the Principal Bench in OA No.1514/2009. Once again, the parties, as mentioned above, shall have to abide by the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
4. The review application and the TA/OAs are thus closed with the observation as made above, with liberty to any of the parties, if so advised, to seek intervention/impleadment in the pending writ petition in the High Court, which, as mentioned above, has been filed against order dated 26.5.2009 in TA No.47/PB/2009 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/