Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Guru Pada Mandal vs Bsnl on 27 September, 2022
i | OLA. No. 350/ 1702022 a CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL o KOLKATABENCH, KOLKATA Q.A. No. 850/1701/2022 MLA. No. 6688/2022 Date-of Order! 27.09.2022 Coram: Hon'ble Mr, Jdayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member Honble Dr. (Ms.) Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member In the matter of :
1. Guru Pada Mandal, son of Sr Karunamoy Mandal, aged about 47 years, working as Divisional Engineer {Look Aiter), Salt Lake in the office of Salt Lake Telephone Exchange, Block DE, Salt Lake, Sector-1, Kolkata-700064, residing at Flat No.3/4, Parul Apartment, 24, Paulin Avenue, P.O, Rajbari, P.S. Burn Dum, Kolkata~' Bk fO0G8?. (Mp 9432000722, -- Email \CS?)/ - - [email protected] id:
2. Sankar Karan, son of Ahi Shusan Karan, aged about 47 years, working as Divisional Engineer, (Look After)/CMTS, in the office of DGM (BSSVCM, Telephone Kendra (9th), P-10, New CIT Road, Kolkata-
(00072, residing at 42/53, K.S.D. Road, Nimta, PS. Ninita, Kolkata-700049. (VM):
9592000017, Ematl-(d:
sankar [email protected], .
3. Subhasish Paul, son of Biswa Ranjan Paul, aged about 45 years, working as Divisional Engineer (Look Aften, in the office of DGM (Billing), BSNL EZEC, Block-
GB, Sector-3, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700097, residing at SOYA, R.B. Street, Konnagar, P.O. & PS. Konnagar, District Hooghly, Pin 712235 (West Bengal). (M1):
9434000019 Email Id:
[email protected].
oan Appioants
-Versus-
1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi-110004,
2. Chairman cum Managing Director, Bharat "Sanchar Nigara Limited, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi-110001.
3. Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Calcutta Telephones, Telephone Bhawan, (2nd Floor}, 34, BBD.
Bag (South), Kolkata-700001.
cee OA. No. S80/1701/2022 fa
4. The Director {HR}, Bharat Sancher Nigam Limited, 4th Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan,
- Janpath, New _ Dethi- 110004.
vce ESERHIGSNS For The Applicant(s): Mr. S. K. Datta; Counsel For The Respondent(s)' None ORDERORAD "Per! Dr. (Ms.) Nandita Chatterjee Heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant.
2. 'The applicants have filed this OA, under Section 19 of the rae Rane amas é SS 5 ke is aX ;
ba J Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following relief:-
a} "An order directing the respondents to grant promotion to the Sub-Divisional Engineers {T) belonging te Seniority List No.8 or before Senfority List Ne.8 holding that the Order dated 13.09.2022 passed in OA. No.1626 of 2022 does not have any bearing on the Seniority List No.8 or any Seniority List prior to. Seniarity List No.8 in respect of SDE {T) which is an All India Seniority List.
b) An order directing the respondents to grant promotion to the applicants and others belonging to Seniority List No.8 af SDE {T) within a period as to this Hon'ble may seem fit and proper. _ .
c) An order directing the respondents to produce/cause production of all relevant records,
d) Any other order or further orderfarders as to this Hon'ble Tribunal may seem fit and proper." 3, An M.A bearing No. 350/668/2022 has been preferred by the applicants seeking liberty under Rule 4(5}{aj) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 to jointly pursue this O.A. Upon being satisfied that the applicants share a common interest and are pursuing a common cause of action, such liberty is granted, The ety 3 OA. No. S50/T701/2022 'arplicants are allowed to pursue the remedy jointly subject to payment of individual court fees {postal order/demand drat}. M.A, No. 350/668/2022 is disposed of accordingly.
4. Ld. Counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants: were promoted as Sub-Divisional Engineers in November 2008 against the vacancy year 2005-2006. That, thereaiter,. subsequent to such promotion, they were placed in a seniority | Hist of Sub-Divisional Engineers (T) No. 8 dated 31.12.2019 {at Annexure A-1 to the O.A)). That, the Sub-Divisional Engineers who were promoted /directly reoruited as Sub-Divisional Engineers were placed in seniority list nos. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. A dispute arose regarding seniority lst nos. 9 to 13 when ene Sri Vinod Kumar N agwanshi, who was a promotec Sub- Divisional Engineer (0), having been so promoted on 17.07.2013, found that his mame was deleted from the seniority list no. 9 and placed in seniority list no. 12, Being agerieved with such altered | position, the said Sri Nagwanshi moved this Tribunal in O.A, 350/1626/2022(Vinod Kumar Nagwanshi vs, UOL & Ors.) which was disposed of by this Tribunal on 13.09.2022 (annexed ait Annexure A-2 to the O.A.).
The applicants herein would aver that they were not parties to the said O.A, 350/1626/2022, and, that the intention of the applicant in O.A. 350/1626/ 2022 was not to stall the promotion rt a OA, No, 350/1701/2022 in the seniority list no. 8 as such seniority list was never under dispute. Learried Counsel for the applicants would further submit that their promotions have, however, been stalled by virtue of this Tribunal's order in O.A. 350 {1626/2022 which had directed:
as follows:-
'4. Ordered accordingly. Let a detailed speaking order be issued on the representation and let a seniority lst be published afresh in the light of the DOPT OM dated 13.08.2021 in consideration of the grievance of the applicant as projected tm. | nN - their representations and till such time, there shall not be any : "promotion from SDE(T) to AGM cadre."
Hence, this O.A. 5, 'The applicants would advance the following -grounds in support of their claim --
IL. That, as the seniority list no. 8 was not the subject. matter-of challenge/ grievance in O.A. 350 / 1626/2022, the promotion of the applicants whose names are enlisted in 'seniority list no. 8 cannot be stalled by the respondents.
ll. That, although the applicants herein were not parties to the O.A. 350/1626/ 2022, their promotions has unreasonably been kept in abeyance by the respondents.
il. That, in the absence of any restraining order, as far as seniority list no: § is concerned, their promotions cannot 'kept in abeyance. _
6. In the absence of any order whereby promotions arising _ from Seniority List No. 8 has been kept under abeyance, this uo We . 7 5 OA. No. 850/1701/2022 | Tribunal is not in a position to ascertain as to whether the respondents have allegedly interpreted this. Tribunal's orders dated 13.09.2022 in O.A, 350/1626 /2022 to keep the setiiority | list no. 8, as well as the consequent promotions thereof, in abeyance. Hence, the prayer of the applicants that this Tribunal should issue an order stating that "the order issued in O.A.
--350/1626/2022 does not have any bearing on seniority list no, 8 or, any seniority list prior to seniority list no. 8 with respect to Sub-Divisional Engineers (T)", is largely speculative in nature.
5 7. Ld. Counsel for the applicants would also furnish, in Ors. vs. Uol & Ors) to emphasize that the Division Bench of this Tribunal is competent to provide further clarifications to the decision arrived at by the Single Bench of this Tribunal, and, issue a clarificatory order thereon. Upon close reading of the ratio in Ajit Babu (supra), it is deciphered that the Horv'ble Apex --
Court had directed as follows:-
_ "3. Fhe Tribunal rejected the application of the appellant merely on the ground that the appellant was seeking selling aside of fhe judgment rendered .
(supra) in TA No. 263 of 1986. It is. here that the Tribunal apparently fell in error. No doubt the decision of the Tribunal in the case P.S. John was against the appellant but the application filed by the appellant under Section 19 of the Act bas to be deait with in accordance with law.
6. Consistency, certainly and uniformity in the field of judicial decisions are considered to be the benefits arising out of the "Doctrine of Precedent"
The precedent sets a patiern upon which a future conduct may be based. One of the basic principles of administration of justice is, that the cases -
_ should be decided alike. Thus the doctrine of precedent is applicable to the Central Administrative Tribunal also. Whenever an application under Section 19 of the Act fs filed and the question involved in the said application stands concluded by some earlier decision of the Tribunal, the Tribunal necessarily fas to take into account the judgment rendered in the earlier case, as a precedent and decide the application accordingly. The Tribunal may either support, the judicial ratio in (1997) 6 SCC AT3 (K. Ajit Babu & by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in the case of B.S. John .6 _ O.A. No. 850/1701/2022
agree with the view taken in 'the earlier judgment or if may dissent. If if dissents, then the matter can be referred to a larger Bench/Full Bench and place the matter before the Chairman for consiituting a darger Bench so that there may be no conflict upon the two Benches. The larger Bench, then, has fo consider the correciness of the earlier decision in disposing of the later application. The larger Bench can overrule the View taken in the earlier judgment and declare the law, which would be binding on all the benches {see John Lucas') In the present case, what we find is that the Tribunal rejected the application of the appellants thinking that the appellanis are seeking setting aside of the decision of the Tribunal in Transfer Application - No. 263 of 7986. This view taken by the Tribunal was not correct. The application of the appellant was required to be decided in accordance with Jaw." . .
In Ajit Babu (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was referring to the "Doctrine of Precedent" stating thereby that one of the basic principles of administration of justice is that the cases should be decided alike. The cause of action in O.A. 1626/2022 was a challenge to seniority lists 9 to 13. In the instant O.A., the applicants pray for promotional benefits in accordance with the . seniority list no. 8, reportedly not under any challenge. The two
-O.A.s are hence not based on similar cause of action. This limits the applicability of the "Doctrine of Precedent" in the instant OAL
8. No specific order, whereby the promotions to the applicants have been kept in abeyance, have been brought on record. Hence, there is no order under challenge and it would not serve any useful purpose in calling for a reply from the respondents. _ This Tribunal would therefore deem it fit to dispose of this - O.A. by granting liberty to the applicants concerned to prefer a representation to the competent respondent authority praying for promotion on the basis of seniority list no. 8, in which the 7 OA. No. 850/17 01/2022 plicants claim to have been enlisted, within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, In the event such representation is received, the competent authority shall within a period of 6 weeks thereafter, examine the claim of the applicants in the light of the averments made - therem. Consequent to the same, and, if nothing else stands in the way, the respondents will proceed to grant promotion to the applicants in accordance with law.
With the above directions, this O.A. stands disposed of.
¥
- (Nandita Chatterjee) (Jayesh V. Bhairavia) Member (A) | - Member @) | UW