Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Basappa vs D/O Telecommunication on 20 December, 2021
1
OA.No.170/397/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00397/2019
ORDER RESERVED ON 07.10.2021
DATE OF ORDER: 20.12.2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI SURESH KUMAR MONGA, MEMBER (J)
(On video conference from Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh
Bench, Chandigarh)
HON'BLE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
(On video conference from Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench,
Bangalore)
Basappa
S/o Lalappa Bavidoddi
Aged about 82 years
Retired as Chief Section Supervisor
BSNL, Kalaburagi
Resident of MEG No.109, KGB Colony
Old Jewarji Road, Kalaburgi 585102. ....Applicant
(By Advocate Shri A.R.Holla - through video conference)
Vs.
1. The General Manager
BSNL, Gulbarga-585101.
2. The Chief General Manager
Telecom, Karnataka Circle
No.1, Swamy Vivekananda Road
Bangalore-560 008.
3. The Union of India
Ministry of Communication
Rep. by its Secretary
Department of Telecommunication
No.20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110 001.
4. The Controller of Communication Accounts
Karnataka Telecom Circle
2nd Floor, Amenity Block
Palace Road, Bangalore-560 001. .....Respondents
(By Advocate Shri V.N.Holla, Sr.PC for R1 & 2 and Shri Vishnu Bhat for R3 &
4 - through video conference)
2
OA.No.170/397/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
ORDER
PER: RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:
i. Quash and set aside the impugned order in No: Q-108/2013-14/25 dated 30/1/2014 (Annexure-A8) issued by the 1st respondent vide which the applicant has been reverted with retrospective effect w.e.f. 05.07.1995.
ii. Direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for restoration of pension and draw the consequential benefits with interest while declaring the pension in letter in No.KTK/CCA/IDA/SA/GLB/1357 dated 16/8/2017 (Annexure- A15) issued by the 4th respondent as wrong, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the applicant are as follows:
a. Applicant has worked as Senior Section Supervisor in BCR-TOA (Grade III). He was promoted to BCR TOA (Grade IV) vide promotion order dated 03.07.1995. As per the BCR scheme, the One Time Bound Promotion (OTBP) has to be given on completion of 16 years of service and Grade III is to be granted on completion of 26 years of service in basic cadre.
b. The candidates belonging to reserved community would be entitled to relaxation such as on completion of 12 years. 10% of BCR is taken into account for the purpose of Grade-IV promotion which was considered to avoid stagnation in basic cadre.
3
OA.No.170/397/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench c. The 1st respondent issued a reversion order of promotion on 21.12.2001. The applicant being aggrieved with such reversion had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP.No.13748/2002. The High Court vide its order dated 14.01.2008 quashed the impugned order dated 21.12.2001 with liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioner after disposal of their petition before the Supreme Court in accordance with law.
d. The respondents have filed Civil Appeal No.6920/2005 in WP.No.33765/2000 of Shri B.B. Goudar CTS (Chief Telephone Supervisor) of Bijapur division before the Hon'ble Apex Court against the Karnataka High Court, Bangalore order dated 18.11.2004. The Hon'ble Apex Court passed its order dated 18.03.2013 in Civil Appeal No.6920/2005. The applicant was not a party to the proceedings in the Civil Appeal and it is not similar and identical to the case of applicant in facts and circumstances.
e. As the grievance of the applicant has not been redressed, the applicant again filed WP.No.101436/2013 for mandamus directions. High Court passed order dated 12.11.2013 and directed the respondents to report compliance by 30.01.2014.
f. The 1st respondent conducted personal hearing on 03.01.2014 and issued a reversion order on 30.01.2014 quoting another judgment of Apex Court passed on 06.09.2011 in the matter of BSNL vs. R. Shanta Kumari Velusamy. This particular case, according to the applicant, has no application to the case on hand.
4
OA.No.170/397/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench g. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2014, the applicant filed another Writ Petition No.201860-861/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the WP by order dated 13.08.2014. Thereafter, the applicant approached the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, the Apex Court vide letter dated 26.03.2018 rejected the original letter-petition with Annexures stating that the matter is subjudice and hence, the applicant is advised to take appropriate steps under the provisions of law.
h. The applicant submitted his representation dated 07.04.2018 and 10.05.2018 with a request to restore his pension. The Under Secretary, Min. Of Communication issued a reply letter dated 27.04.2018 but it was not restored. As such, the applicant again approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi in CCC No.200111/2018 in WP.No.13748/2002(S-PRO). The High Court vide its order dated 30.08.2018 held that 'from the date of reversion i.e. 30.01.2014, a fresh cause of action has arisen and directed the applicant to challenge the reversion before this Tribunal. In pursuance of the said orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the present OA has been filed.
i. The applicant was promoted to the Supervisory cadre on 08.10.1979 i.e. well before the OTBP scheme was introduced in November 1983. The seniority assigned to the applicant in the supervisory cadre was consequential and on the strength of this seniority, the applicant was promoted and placed in the scale of Rs.2000-3200 and it was not on account of avoiding stagnation in basic cadre. He was therefore, entitled 5 OA.No.170/397/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench to the pension of Rs.13333/-. However, the pension of the applicant has been fixed at Rs.12946/- vide order No.KTK/IDA/SA/GLB/1357 dated 16.08.2017. The respondents have commuted the period of 15 years from the date of reversion on 30.01.2014 instead of calculating it from the date of retirement 31.08.2006 for restoring the reduced pension of Rs.2302 and therefore the impugned sanction conveyed vide letter dated 16.08.2017 is in violation of Statutory Pension Rules.
3. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they averred as follows:
a. The applicant was promoted to the Grade IV in the higher scale of Rs.2000-3200 on 5.7.1995 from amongst the BCR officials of TOA(G) cadre on the basis of circle seniority by applying 40 point roster under CGMT BG No.STA/8-20/BCR/Gr.IV dated 03.07.1995. The applicant belongs to Scheduled Caste Community.
b. Subsequently, DOT ND has issued guidelines for promotion to Gr. IV against 10% posts in the BCR scheme under DOT Letter No.22-6/94- TE.II dated 08.09.1999. As per this order, the Gr. IV promotion may be given from amongst officials in Grade III(BCR) on the basis of their seniority in the basic grade of TOA (G) at SSA level.
c. As per the guidelines of DOT ND letter dated 08.09.1999, all ineligible officials who had been promoted to Gr. IV by application of Reservation Roster were to be reverted with immediate effect. The applicant who was 6 OA.No.170/397/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench actually promoted on the basis of Circle level seniority, on applying 40- point Reservation Roster was reverted accordingly.
d. The order of reversion was challenged by the applicant before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP.No.13748/2002 with the following reliefs being sought by the applicant:
i. Call for the relevant records leading to the issuance of the impugned order No.E-2017/BCR/Gr.IV/2001-2002/103 dated 21.12.2001(Annexure-A) wherein the reversion of the Petitioner was ordered without any show cause notice and on perusal.
ii. Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ in quashing the impugned order No.E-217/BCR/Gr.IV/2001- 2002/103 dated 21.12.2001(Annexure-A) passed by the 1st Respondent as discriminatory and void.
e. In the meanwhile, the applicant retired from service on superannuation on 31.08.2006 and provisional pension was duly released to him, taking into account that he was continued in Gr. IV as per the interim order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in WP.No.13748/2002 and the issue was before the Hon'ble Courts for adjudication.
f. The Hon'ble High Court passed the following order dated 14.01.2008 in Writ Petition No.13748/2002:
"5. It is not in dispute that from 5.7.1995 to 21.12.2001 petitioner discharged his duties in Grade-IV. On the basis of the guidelines 7 OA.No.170/397/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench dated 8.9.1999 the impugned order came to be passed reverting the petitioner from Grade-IV to Grade-III. Before passing the impugned order, no opportunity was given to the petitioner. The impugned order will have a serious consequence on the rights of the petitioner who continued in Grade-IV from 1995 to 2001. Further the guidelines said to have been issued by the respondents were not in existence in 1995 when the petitioner was promoted from Grade-III to Grade-IV. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that identical issue is pending before the Supreme Court. If that is so, liberty is reserved to the respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioner after the disposal of the petition before the Supreme Court in accordance with law.
For the reasons stated above, the following:
ORDER i. Writ Petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 21.12.2001 passed by the 1st Respondent is hereby quashed.
iii. Liberty is reserved to the Respondents to take appropriate action against the Petitioner after disposal of their petition before the Supreme Court in accordance with law.
iv. Ordered accordingly."
g. In the year 2013, the applicant again filed one more Writ Petition No.101436/2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Gulbarga Bench, Gulbarga stating that his pension has not been revised and he is neither party to the proceedings nor the respondents have challenged the impugned order in WP.No.13748/2002 dated 14.01.2008. Hence, the contentions of the respondents that the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is illegal for not modifying the pension. 8
OA.No.170/397/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench h. The said WP was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 12.11.2013 with the following observations:
"Petitioner's reversion from grade IV to Grade-III when called in question in WP No.13748/2002 was quashed reserving liberty to respondents Management to take appropriate action against petitioner after disposal of Civil Appeal No.6920/2005, pending before the Supreme Court on identical issues.
Learned counsel for 1st respondent submits that in view of the judgment of Apex Court notice supra, action will be taken in accordance with law after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner over reversion of petitioner from Gr. IV to Gr.III and accordingly pension benefits would be made over."
i. The Hon'ble Court further noted that 'nothing further survives for consideration in this petition'. It is pertinent to mention that the CA No.6920/2005 (B.B. Gowder case) before the Apex Court was allowed/disposed of in terms of "BSNL vs. R. Santthakumari Velusamy and others"(CA No.5286-87/2005) order, dated 06.09.2011. j. The final settlement of the issue of upgradation from Gr.III to Gr.IV was completely hinged to the final adjudication by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue as noted by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP.No.101436/2013 vide order dated 12.11.2013. The Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the Civil Appeal No.6920/2005 (B.B.Gowdar case) vide order dated 18.03.2013 holding that the matters are squarely covered by the judgment in 'BSNL vs. R. Santha Kumari Veluswamy & Others (2011(9) SCC 510). Thus, the matter is rendered as res judicata. 9
OA.No.170/397/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench k. In pursuance to the above orders, personal hearing was accorded to the applicant on 30.01.2014 in the chamber of DGM of O/o General Manager, Gulbarga and all the contentions raised by the applicant were duly considered by the competent authority in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in R. Santha Kumari Velusamy case and relevant circulars issued by DOT/BSNL from time to time.
l. The contention of the applicant that the order 08.09.1999 is not applicable in his case is found factually incorrect. The competent authority observed that he was promoted in the year 1995 to the Grade IV among Gr-III officials. His upgradation was not based on basic grade seniority, but on the basis of inter se seniority among BCR Gr.III officials against the vacancy due to retirement of one Sri B.V. Reddy (SC vacancy). It is also found that he is not the senior most official in the basic grade seniority at Gulbarga SSA vis-a-vis the said promotion effected in the year 1995. The competent authority found that all the claims of the applicant had no substance and were liable for rejection. m. Further while laying down procedure for promotion to Gr.IV (10% BCR), for implementing the said circular dated 13.12.1995, DOT vide order dated 17.05.1996 has stipulated that 'all the promotions made since the inception of scheme are to be reviewed and regulated in terms of the order dated 13.12.1995 and 10.05.1996. Further promotion in any case has to be made strictly in accordance with the new procedure'. n. Finally, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in R. Santha Kumari Veluswamy case [(2011 (9) SCC 510)] and order of the Hon'ble 10 OA.No.170/397/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench High Court of Karnataka in the said Writ petitions, taking into consideration of facts and circumstances, the competent authority found that the promotion of the applicant vide No.STA/8-20/BCR/Gr.IV dated 03.07.1995 is a nullity. Hence, it was concluded that he is liable for reversion from Gr.IV to Gr.III.
o. Accordingly, the applicant was reverted from Gr. IV to Gr.III w.e.f. 5.7.1995. Meanwhile, the competent authority has also directed that his pay shall be fixed accordingly and further pension could be regularized on that basis.
p. Subsequent to passing of the above orders by the respondents, the applicant filed WP.No.201860-861/2014 (S.RES) before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Gulbarga Bench with the prayer to direct the respondents to consider the representation filed by the petitioner and also to direct the respondents to modify the provisional pension order. q. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Gulbarga Bench had disposed of the said WP by order dated 13.08.2014 with the following orders:
3. It is seen that it is in furtherance of earlier order, the second writ petition i.e. WP No.101436/2013 is disposed of by order dated 12.11.2013, after recording the submission of learned counsel for first respondent therein that in view of Civil Appeal No.6920/2005, which was pending before the Apex Court on identical issue, being disposed of the representation of petitioner at Annexures-B, B1 and C to the said writ petition will be considered and disposed of after giving opportunity to the petitioner in the said writ petition. The said order dated 12.11.2013 was required to be complied on or before 11 OA.No.170/397/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench 31.1.2014. Accordingly, a communication is sent by the respondents to that effect. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that compliance being complete, pursuant to the order dated 12.11.2013, nothing survives for consideration in these writ petitions. If the compliance is not in accordance with the order passed by this Court in WP.No.101436/2013, it is well within the discretion of Petitioner to take appropriate steps and the same is not by filing these writ petitions...."
4. The applicant has filed rejoinder wherein he averred as follows:
a. The applicant was promoted as Chief Section Supervisor vide order dated 03.07.1995 in accordance with the order dated 16.10.1990 of the DoT, New Delhi and order dated 18.03.1992 of the Chief General Manager, Telecom, Bengaluru, against the post vacated by Sri B.V.Reddy. It was a regular promotion and not financial upgradation as sought to be made out.
b. The order passed by the Supreme Court is applicable in case of financial upgradation from BCR Grade-III to BCR Grade-IV and not for regular promotions. Further, the scheme of financial upgradations of 10% BCR employees from Grade-III to Grade-IV came in to effect vide order dated 08.09.1999. When the applicant was promoted on 03.07.1995, the guidelines for financial upgradation to 10% BCR Grade-IV were not in force. These guidelines were brought in to force by order dated 08.09.1999.
c. Hence, the order dated 30.01.2014 passed by the 1st respondent reverting the applicant to BCR Grade-III w.e.f. 5.7.1995, that too, after his 12 OA.No.170/397/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench retirement on 31.08.2006, is not in accordance with law. The applicant has discharged his duties in the higher post till his retirement. Hence, he is entitled to the pay of the post in which he has worked.
5. In the additional reply filed by the respondents No.3 & 4, it was submitted that:
a. The applicant was reverted from Grade-IV to Grade-III retrospectively w.e.f. 05.07.1995 in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Gulbarga passed in WP.No.101436/2013 (S-R) dated 12.11.2013. His pay was also consequently refixed as per the order dated 30.01.2014.
b. In pursuance of the said order, the 4th respondent refixed the pension vide order dated 16.08.2017. The revised authority for payment of pension at Rs.12629/- was issued by respondent No.4 vide revised PPO No:
KTK/CCA/IDA/SA/GLB/1357 dated 16.08.2017. The date of restoration of commuted portion of pension is 10.07.2022 and is indicated in the revised PPO No.KTK/CCA/IDA/SA/GLB/1357 dated 16.08.2017.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings submitted by them.
7. As can be seen from the pleadings, this matter has been the subject matter of repeated litigations initiated by the applicant. The case has been examined multiple times by various Courts.
8. In the present OA, the applicant has challenged the order dated 30.01.2014 issued by the 1st respondent reverting the applicant from Grade IV to Grade III 13 OA.No.170/397/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench w.e.f. 05.07.1995. This reversion order was issued in compliance of the order dated 12.11.2013 of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Gulbarga in WP.No.101436/2013(S-R). The High Court had disposed of the matter with the observations that 'action will be taken in accordance with law extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner over his reversion from Grade IV to Grade III". Accordingly, the applicant was given an opportunity of personal hearing before the impugned order dated 30.01.2014 was issued by the respondents.
9. This order was subsequently challenged in WP.No.201860-861/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Gulbarga Bench. The Hon'ble High Court noted that 'compliance of the earlier order being complete, pursuant to the order dated 12.11.2013, nothing survives for consideration in these writ petitions. If the compliance is not in accordance with the order passed in WP.No.101436/2013, it is well within the discretion of petitioner to take appropriate steps.'
10.The applicant again approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburgi Bench vide Contempt Petition No.200111/2018 in WP.No.13748/2002. The High Court vide orders dated 30th August, 2018, dropped the contempt proceedings, and also granted liberty to the complainant to challenge the reversion order before this Tribunal. The present OA has accordingly been filed by the applicant in order to challenge the reversion order dated 30.01.2014.
11.The facts of the case reveal that the applicant had been promoted/upgraded in Grade-IV (10% BCR) from Grade III vide orders dated 03.07.1995. This 14 OA.No.170/397/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench upgradation was on the basis of circle seniority as Senior Section Supervisor as per the 40 point roster maintained by the office of Chief General Manager Telecom, Karnataka Circle. Hence, he had been upgraded after following the policy of having reservation in promotion.
12.The Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) scheme, introduced in 1990 was applicable to the Group-C and Group-D cadres of the Dept. of Telecommunications. The employees were initially eligible for promotion in Grade II, under One Time Bound Promotion (OTBP) scheme after completion of 16 years of service in the basic grade. Under the BCR scheme, employees in regular service as on 1.1.1990 and who had completed 26 years of satisfactory service in the basic cadre, were to be screened by a duly constituted Committee to assess their performance and determine their suitability for advancement and if found suitable, were to be upgraded in the higher BCR scale of Grade III. Out of the total posts in BCR (Grade III) pay scale, 10% of posts in BCR (Grade III) pay scale were to be placed in the higher pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 i.e. Grade IV.
13.Initially, vide circular dated 13.12.1995, the government formulated the procedure regarding promotion to Grade IV. Under this procedure, promotions to Grade-IV were to be based on seniority in the basic grade from among the officers in Grade-III subject to fitness determined in the usual manner of OTBP. By a clarificatory circular dated 01.03.1996, the government issued a clarification that promotion to Grade IV would be given from among officials in Grade III on the basis of their seniority in the basic grade, subject to fulfilment of other conditions and that normal rules of reservation would apply to promotions in Grade IV.
15
OA.No.170/397/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
14.This policy of applying rule of reservation in promotions to Grade IV under BCR was challenged by the All India Non SC/ST Telecom Employees Association on the ground that principles of reservation would not apply for upgradations of existing posts which did not carry any change in duties and responsibilities. The Ahmadabad Bench of this Tribunal vide its order dated 11.4.1997 in OA No.623/1996 held that the department could not apply reservation rules while upgrading the posts under the BCR scheme and directed the department to take appropriate action for effecting promotions to the upgraded posts without applying the reservation roster. This was upheld by the Gujarat High Court vide order dated 24.3.1999. In view of the said court decision, the Government issued the order dated 8.9.1999 directing that a Review DPC be held and all ineligible officers wrongly promoted to Grade IV by application of reservation roster as per office order dated 1.3.1996, should be reverted back and all eligible officers should be placed in Grade IV and their pay should be fixed notionally.
15.The order dated 8.9.1999 was challenged before the Madras and Bangalore Benches of this tribunal who allowed the applications and quashed the order dated 8.9.1999. The orders of the Madras Bench of this tribunal were also upheld by the Madras High Court. The matter was finally heard by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BSNL vs. R. Santhakumari Velusamy & others in Civil Appeal No.5286-87/2005 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled as follows:
'..the BCR scheme was an upgradation scheme to give relief against stagnation. It did not involve creation of any new posts. It did not involve advancement to a higher post. It did not involve any process of selection for conferment of the benefit of higher pay-scale. The upgradation was 16 OA.No.170/397/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench given to the senior most 10% of BCR scale employees in Grade III strictly as per seniority. BCR scheme as per circular dated 16.10.1990 was thus a scheme for upgradation simplicitor without involving any creation of additional posts or any process of selection for extending the benefit. Such a scheme of upgradation did not invite the rules of reservation. We accordingly allow these appeals, set aside the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal and dismiss the Original Applications challenging the order of the telecom department dated 08.09.1999.'
16.In the present case, the applicant had been upgraded to Grade-IV under BCR scheme and his upgradation was on the basis of circle seniority as Senior Section Supervisor as per the 40 point roster maintained by the office of Chief General Manager Telecom, Karnataka Circle. Hence, he had been upgraded on the basis of the policy of reservation in promotion. He was not eligible for upgradation on the basis of his seniority in the basic cadre.
17.The contention of the applicant that his upgradation to Grade IV was on the basis of a regular promotion and not due to any financial upgradation is not borne out from the facts of the case. He had been granted upgradation to Grade IV under the BCR scheme. Under this scheme upgradation from the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 to the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 was to be given to 10% of the BCR sanctioned posts. The Apex court in the case of R. Santhakumari Velusamy's case (supra) has held that this is a financial upgradation and not a promotion and did not invite the rules of reservation. It also upheld the order of DOT dated 8.9.1999 vide which all ineligible officers wrongly promoted to Grade IV by application of reservation roster had to be reverted back.
18.The order of the respondents dated 21.12.2001 reverting the applicant from Grade-IV pay scale i.e. Rs.2000-3200 to Grade-III pay scale i.e. Rs.1640-2900 was in accordance with the orders of DOT dated 8.9.1999. This reversion order 17 OA.No.170/397/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench was a matter of litigation by the applicant in various Courts. It finally culminated in the impugned order dated 30.01.2014 being issued by the 1st respondent reverting the applicant from Grade IV to Grade III w.e.f. 05.07.1995. This reversion order was issued as a detailed speaking order, in compliance of the order dated 12.11.2013 of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Gulbarga in WP.No.101436/2013(S-R) dated 12.11.2013. The matter was disposed of by the respondents after grant of personal hearing to the applicant.
19.The contention of the applicant in the present OA that the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.Santhakumari Velusamy is not applicable to him is incorrect since the applicant had been granted higher pay scale under BCR scheme as in the case of the respondents in R.Santhakumari Velusamy's case. The ruling of the Apex Court in R.Santhakumari Velusamy's case is squarely applicable to the case of the applicant as well and there is no reason to disagree with the orders issued by the respondents dated 30.01.2014.
20.In view of the above, we find no merit in the OA which deserves to be dismissed.
21.Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (SURESH KUMAR MONGA)
MEMBER (ADMN) MEMBER (JUDL)
/ps/