Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
D Venkateswara Rao vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 11 February, 2025
1 OA 020/00753/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH :: HYDERABAD
OA No.020/00753 of 2019
Reserved on: 06.12.2024
Pronounced on: 11.02.2025
CORAM :
HON'BLE Dr. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE Ms. SHALINI MISRA, MEMBER(A)
1. D. Venkateswara Rao, Aged 59 years,
S/o. Krishna Murthy Patnaik,
Office Superintendent, Group C,
Customer Service Centre, BSNL, GMTD,
Srikakulam - 532 001, R/o. Plot No. 15, Dr. No. 18-15,
RTC Colony, YVR Nagar, Visakha A Colony, Srikakulam - 532 001.
2. U. Prameela Rani, Aged 56 years,
D/o. K. Somayya, Office Superintendent, Group C
Customer Service Centre, BSNL, GMTD,
Srikakulam - 532 001, R/o. Dr. No. 12-45, Srinivasa Nagar Colony,
Backside Aditya Degree College, Srikakulam - 532 001.
3. S.G. Ramana, aged 59 years,
S/o. S. Paidayya, Assistant Office Superintendent, Group C,
Customer Service Centre, BSNL, GMTD, Srikakulam,
Amadalavalasa - 532 185, R/o. 16-01-3/39, B.R. Nagar,
Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam - 532 185.
4. Y. Bhanoji Rao, Aged 62 years,
S/o. Y. Narayana Rao, Assistant Office Superintendent (Retd.),
Telephone Exchange, BSNL, GMTD, Vizianagaram, Salur,
R/o. 10-19, Swamyvari Street, Near Government Hospital,
Bobbili - 535 558, Vizianagaram District.
5. V.V. Ramana Murthy, Aged 60 years,
S/o. C. Kamesam, Office Superintendent (Retd),
BSNL, GMTD, Vizianagaram, R/o. B-3-210, Dolphin Heights,
Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram - 535 002.
6. Ch. Usha Rani, Aged 58 years,
D/o. P Krishna Rao, Office Superintendent,
O/o. Commercial Officer, BSNL, GMTD,
Vizianagaram, R/o. Plot No. 47, Sri Kanakadurga Nilayam,
Krishnarajpuram, Near OM Mandir, Vizianagaram - 535 002.
7. P. Parvateesam, Aged 63 years,
S/o. P. Krishnamurthy, Assistant Office Superintendent (Retd),
BSNL, GMTD, Vizianagaram, R/o. MIG-II/138, Phase-3, VUDA Colony,
Vizianagaram - 535 003.
8. G.V.S. Ramakrishna Rao, Aged 61 years,
S/o. G. Dharma Rao, Assistant Office Superintendent (Retd),
Customer Service Centre,
O/o. SDE Gopalapatnam, Telephone Exchange,
BSNL, GMTD, Visakhapatnam,
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=
Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA
VISWESWARA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=
0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369e
b, SERIALNUMBER=
RAO ESURU
d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936,
[email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 10:41:10+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
2 OA 020/00753/2019
R/o. 7-282/5, Flat No. 05, Shilpa Residency,
Varalaxminagar, Vepagunta, Visakhapatnam - 530 047.
9. G. Visweswara Rao, Aged 61 years,
S/o. G. Govinda Rao,
Assistant Office Superintendent (Retd),
Customer Service Centre, Sector -8, Steel Plant,
Visakhapatnam, R/o. 31-09-6/10, Flat No. 501,
Harshit Heavens, Kurmannapalem,
Visakhapatnam - 530 031.
10. G. Ganesh Naidu, Aged 58 years,
S/o. S. Appalaswamy,
Office Superintendent, BSNL, GMTD, Dabagardens,
Visakhapatnam - 530 020.
R/o. Dr. No. 13-270, Ariloa, Visakhapatnam - 530 040.
11. P. Kamala Manjula, Aged 61 years,
D/o. PSR Kameswara Rao, Office Superintendent (Retd),
BSNL, GMTD, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam - 530 020,
R/o. 6-105, Priya Gardens, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam - 530 028.
12. T. Kishore Kumar, Aged 64 years,
S/o. T. Rajendra Prasad,
Section Supervisor (Retd), BSNL, GMTD, Visakhapatnam - 530 020.
R/o. 28-10-20, Suryabagh, Visakhapatnam - 530 020.
13. A.V. Ranganayakulu, Aged 61 years,
D/o. AVLN Rao, Office Superintendent (Retd),
BSNL, GMTD, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam - 530 020,
R/o. 43-20-28/13, Ganapati Enclave, VR Nagar,
Visakhapatnam - 530 020.
14. K. Nagabhushana Rao, Aged 60 years,
S/o. Adinarayana, Assistant Office Superintendent (Retd),
Customer Service Centre, Seethammadhara,
BSNL, GMTD, Visakhapatnam - 530 013.
R/o. 22-89, Srinivasa Nagar, Simhachalam,
Visakhapatnam - 530 028.
15. V.V. Ramana, Aged 58 years,
D/o. S. Ramachandra Murthy, Assistant Office Superintendent,
AO (Claims Section), BSNL, GMTD, Visakhapatnam - 530 020
R/o. Plot No. 78, D.No. 1-41/2,
Chanakyapuri Layout, Opp. YSR Cricket Stadium,
Visakhapatnam - 530 041.
16. D. Varalakshmi Kumari, Aged 56 years,
D/o. P. Sundara Rao, Office Superintendent, SDE, CMTS, Velampeta, GMTD,
Visakhapatnam - 530 001
R/o. 53-40-5, Flat No. 4E, Srinivasa Paradise,
KRM Colony, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam - 530 013.
17. P. Kameswari, Aged 54 years,
D/o. S. Anjaneyulu, Assistant Office Superintendent
Customer Service Centre, BSNL, GMTD,
Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam - 530 020
R/o. 12-15-03, Prakasaraopeta,
Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam - 530 002.
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=
Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA
VISWESWARA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=
0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369e
b, SERIALNUMBER=
RAO ESURU
d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936,
[email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 10:41:10+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
3 OA 020/00753/2019
18. T.V.B.S. Ramjee, Aged 63 years,
S/o. T.V.Kameswara Rao, Section Supervisor (Retd.),
BSNL, GMTD, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam - 530 020
R/o. G-5, D. No. 2-201/6,
Phanibhushana Residency, Srinivasa Nagar,
5th Lane, Visakhapatnam - 530 027.
19. Y. Trinadha Rao, Aged 58 years,
S/o. Y. Simhachalam, Assistant Office Superintendent
Customer Service Centre, Yelamanchili,
BSNL, GMTD, Visakhapatnam - 531055,
R/o. 03-04-20, Narasingaraopeta,
Telephone Exchange Street, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam - 531 001.
20. K.V. Radhakrishna, Aged 68 years,
S/o. Krishnan Nair, Sr. TOA (Retd.), BSNL, Ex. GMTD, Visakhapatnam,
Retired at Telecom Centre,
Mele Pattambi, Palakkad District, Kerala,
R/o. Kizhakkekkara Vadukoot House,
Post Chathanur, via Peringode, Palakkad - 679 535.
21. N. Ramana Kumari, Aged 57 years,
D/o. N. Antervedi, Office Superintendent
Customer Service Centre, Chodavaram,
BSNL, GMTD, Visakhapatnam - 531 001,
R/o. 12-05-17, Baruvari Street, Anakapalli - 531 001.
....Applicants
(By Advocate Mr. M. Bhaskar)
Vs
1. Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary,
Department of Telecommunications,
Ministry of Communications, Sanchar Bhavan,
20, Ashoka Raod, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chairman & Managing Directror,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Bharat Sanchar Bhavan, Janpath, New Delhi - 110 001.
3. The Chief General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, AP Telecom Circle,
Kaleswara Rao Market, Vijayawada - 520 001.
4. The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Telecom District, Srikakulam - 532001.
5. The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Telecom District, Vizianagaram- 535002.
6. The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Telecom District, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam - 530 020.
7. The Assistant General Manager (Estt.I),
5th Floor, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Janpath, New Delhi - 110 001.
(By Advocate : Mrs. K. Rajitha, Sr. PC for CG
Mrs. P. Sarada, SC for BSNL)
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=
Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA
VISWESWARA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=
0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369e
b, SERIALNUMBER=
RAO ESURU
d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936,
[email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 10:41:10+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
4 OA 020/00753/2019
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Smt.Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicants filed the present OA, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the impugned order dt. 11.10.2018 and for a direction to consider their cases for regularization of services rendered as RTP (Reserved Trained Pool) with consequential benefits.
2. The facts of the case, briefly, as stated by the applicant, are that they were initially selected as Short Duty Telegraphists (SDTLS)/ Short Duty Telegraph Assistants and subsequently, drawn into Reserved Trained Pool after completion of prescribed training. During the initial five weeks training period, they were paid stipend @ 130 per month. On successful completion of training, they were appointed as Short Duty Telegraphist. Their services were utilized against the vacancies available then. After initial recruitment, they were all absorbed permanently as Telegraph Assistants in Department of Telecommunications (DOT), but their services were not regularized from the date of initial recruitment for Short Duty (RTP) against the vacancies available then, even though the recruitment, training process was done as per the recruitment rules in the interest of the administration. This Hon'ble Tribunal allowed OA No. 1053 of 1997 on 21.01.1999 and the Hon'ble CAT/ Ernakulam allowed the OA No. 133 of 2009 on 09.07.2010 on identical issue. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala had also dismissed the appeal OP (CAT) No.158 of 2010 in OA No. 133 of 2009 and the Review Petition No. 880 of 2013 on 10.08.2017 filed by the respondents in OP (CAT) No. 158 of 2010. The request of the applicants was not considered vide impugned order No. 250-12-2018-Estt.III dated 11.10.2018 for regularization of services rendered as RTP. Hence, the OA.
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L= Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA VISWESWARA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369e b, SERIALNUMBER= RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 10:41:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 5 OA 020/00753/2019
3. After notice, the respondents have appeared through their counsel, filed detailed relief and opposed the relief on the ground that the OA is not maintainable and is barred by limitation. The applicants were initially recruited as Short Duty Telegraphists, as per the prevailing guidelines i.e. vide DG P&T, New Delhi No. 207/66/80-STN dated 29.11.1980. At the time of recruitment, additional list of candidates (Part B) was prepared against drop outs and for future vacancies, and they were also imparted training like the candidates in the main list. These officials are engaged intermittently on short duty on hourly basis in a day as per the administrative requirement & work load, but not continuously. The short duty engagement of the operators does not confer any right to regular and continuous employment in the department. The applicants' claim is solely based on the order passed in the matter of Smt. M L Symala & Ors.
4. The respondents stated that the issue involved in the matter of ML Symala & Ors and the present matter is totally different. In the said matter, the issue involved is about non-implementation of the directions of the CGMT, Kerala Circle by the then TDE of Thiruvalla Division. 10 posts of Telephone Operators were created on 20.05.1983 and only 3 were filled up by regularizing 3 RTPs w.e.f. 1.11.1983 whereas the remaining 7 posts were not filled up by the then TDE Thiruvalla Division. Due to administrative delay on the part of the then TDE Thiruvalla in not regularizing the remaining 7 RTPs, a case was filed by the aggrieved officials in the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal and not against the RTP and the relief sought for was to fill up 7 newly created posts on due date, which was over delayed by the Thiruvalla Division owing to some administrative laches. The policy of RTP was not under challenge at any point of time in the said OA. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dt. 01.08.1997 in CA No. 80-123/1996 and batch of similar cases held that "any service which was rendered prior to regular appointment in the cadre cannot count for the purpose of this rule because it cannot be considered as service Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L= Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA VISWESWARA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369e b, SERIALNUMBER= RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 10:41:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 6 OA 020/00753/2019 in any eligible cadre". The same was communicated to all Telecom Circles vide DOT New Delhi letter dt. 17.03.1998. The respondents stated that the main contention of the applicants is that their services were not regularized against the vacancies as they were initially recruited at Telegraph office. Since the applicants were selected as Short Duty Telegraphist as per the prevailing guidelines issued by the DG P&T, New Delhi letter No. 207/66/80-STN dt.29.11.1980 and since they were not selected in the main list and taken for short duty (Part B List), the same does not confer any right to regular and continuous employment in the department.
The respondents further contended that the entire recruitment process was done as per the prevailing guidelines of DG P &T New Delhi vide letter dt.29.11.1980 and there was no violation of procedure.
5. The respondents further contended that in view of the Apex Court judgment and the recruitment process was done as per the prevailing guidelines of the DG P&T Letter Dt. 29.11.1980, no relief can be granted to the applicants. Thus, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the OA.
6. Heard both sides and perused the records.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants argued on the point that all the applicants were engaged from 1981 to 1985 and the respondents department restricted their services of short duty. Subsequently, they have been absorbed as RTPs from 1982 to 1986 and the respondents have regularized their services in DOT from 1983 to 1989. Some of the applicants had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 1053/1997 and the claim of the applicants has been considered vide order dt. 21.01.1999 and it was disposed of in favour of the applicants. However, the respondents have not implemented the order of the Tribunal. Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L= Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA VISWESWARA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369e b, SERIALNUMBER= RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 10:41:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 7 OA 020/00753/2019
8. Learned counsel for the applicants referred to the order passed by the Coordinate Bench, Ernakulam in OA No. 133/2009 dt. 09.07.2010, which attained finality since the said order has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP (CAT) No. 158 of 2010 (S) vide order dt. 01.10.2010. Even the review petition vide RP No. 880 of 2013 (Z) filed by the Department also came to be dismissed on 10.08.2017 and the order of the Coordinate Bench, Ernakulam has been implemented. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the law is settled with regard to regularization of services rendered as RTP in the matter of similarly situated persons in the Department. Therefore, the respondents have to extend the said benefit to the applicants for which the applicants are eligible and entitled. However, the respondents have rejected their representations, which is not only against the order of this Tribunal but also against the order passed by the Coordinate Bench, Ernakulam, which was accepted and executed by the respondents.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the applicants were initially recruited as Short Duty Telegraphists, as per the prevailing guidelines i.e. vide DG P&T, New Delhi No. 207/66/80-STN dated 29.11.1980.
These officials are engaged intermittently on short duty on hourly basis in a day as per the administrative requirement & work load, but not continuously and the short duty engagement of the operators would not confer any right to regular and continuous employment in the department. The applicants' claim is solely based on the order passed in the matter of Smt. M L Symala & Ors, in which, the issue involved is totally different. In the said case, the policy of RTP was not under challenge at any point of time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dt. 01.08.1997 in CA No. 80-123/1996 and batch of similar cases also held that any service rendered prior to regular appointment in the cadre cannot be considered as Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L= Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA VISWESWARA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369e b, SERIALNUMBER= RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 10:41:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 8 OA 020/00753/2019 service in any eligible cadre. It is further contended that since the applicants were selected as Short Duty Telegraphists as per the prevailing guidelines issued by the DG P&T, New Delhi letter dt.29.11.1980 and since they were not selected in the main list and they were taken for short duty (Part B List), the same would not confer any right to regular and continuous employment in the department.
10. Further, learned counsel for the respondents referring to the order passed by this Tribunal dt. 21.01.1999 in OA 1053/1997 filed by some of the applicants herein, argued that the applicants had made an attempt for seeking similar relief. In the said OA, this Tribunal did not accede to the said relief and the said order attained finality as the applicants did not challenge the same. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the applicants have allowed the order of this Tribunal to become final, as well as none of the applicants have raised objections when they have been appointed on Short Duty Services as well as RTP and subsequently, when they have been absorbed, they have accepted the terms and conditions till their fag end of their service or till their date of retirement, as the case may be. At that stage, just referring to the order of the Coordinate Bench, Ernakulam, the applicants have claimed the said benefit. In fact, the order referred to by the applicants is not applicable in the matter of the applicants since those applicants were working on sanctioned posts and similarly situated with the other employees who approached the Court at the earliest after the order of absorption claiming regularization on the point that their services as RTP has been taken against the clear vacant sanctioned posts and following the said order, the Coordinate Bench has granted the relief in 2009 to those applicants who clearly fell under those 10 vacancies. Learned counsel further submitted that when their prayer for regularization of services from the initial date of appointment was not acceded to, res judicata applies in the matter and the applicants are estopped from claiming such a relief.Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L= Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA VISWESWARA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369e b, SERIALNUMBER= RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 10:41:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 9 OA 020/00753/2019
11. We have perused the order passed in OA No. 1053/1997 dt. 21.01.1999 in the matter of some of the applicants. Relief sought in the said OA reads thus:
"3. This OA is filed for the following relief:-
i) to regularise their services from the dates of their initial appointment as SDTLS/SDTAS;
ii) or at least to confer temporary status on them on completion of one year service as SDTLs/SDTAs from the dates of their continuous service with all consequential benefits;
iii) to pay them arrears of pay and allowances on par with regular TLS/TAS for the period they worked as RTP/SDTLS/SDTAS with all consequential benefits legally due to them, such as productivity linked bonus on par with regular staff;
iv)to count the service rendered by them as SDTLs/SDTAs for the purpose of increments, pension, etc.;
v) to pay them pay and allowances for Sundays/ Weekly offs and Holidays as admissible to regular staff during the period they worked as SDTLs/SDTAs;
vi)to pay them the arrears due to them in this regard, as stated above; and
vii) to pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case by extending the benefits of judgment in OA No. 1784 of 1992 of the Hon'ble CAT, Ernakulam Bench (Annexure A2 at page No.16 & 17 to the OA) to them, as they are similarly situated as the applicants in the said OA."
While dealing with the issue, this Tribunal has ordered as under:
"8. In view of the above direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicants herein, who had worked as RTP Telegraphists/ Telegraph Assistants are entitled for the scale of pay at the rate of 1/30th of the regular scales of pay of regular employee of that category for the days they worked as RTP Telegraphists/ Telegraph Assistants. If they are not considered accordingly as above already, they should be paid accordingly the arrears arising out of the above direction within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The above is also in accordance with the Judgment of this Tribunal in OA No. 41 of 1994 referred to above.
9. The OA is ordered accordingly. No costs.
12. It is to be noted that, in the matter of ML Shyamala & Others, Coordinate Bench at Ernakulam in OA No. 133/2009, there were 10 RTPs and the respondents therein had regularized the services of those employees except the applicants therein. Therefore, they sought the relief for regularization w.e.f. 01.11.1983. Referring to its earlier similar orders in OA No. 661/1991, which was implemented, Coordinate Bench at Earnakulam granted relief in OA No. 133/2009. Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L= Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA VISWESWARA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369e b, SERIALNUMBER= RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 10:41:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 10 OA 020/00753/2019 Therefore, referring to the available sanctioned vacancies, Coordinate Bench has directed the respondents therein to consider the cases of the applicants for regularization in respect of the remaining employees, who approached the court.
Accordingly, the department implemented the order in their case.
13. It is also to be noted that, while considering the representations of the applicants, the respondents vide their order dt. 11.10.2018 have rejected the claim of the applicants, followed with the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in its order dt. 07.08.1997 in CANo. 80-123 of 1996, wherein it has been observed that any service which was rendered prior to regular appointment in the cadre, cannot be considered as service in any eligible cadre. The Tribunal was therefore wrong in granting to RTPs the benefit of service rendered by them prior to their regular appointment". The respondents have also considered the claim of the applicants in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi.
14. It is also to be noted that the applicants have also not raised objections to the conditions stipulated when they have accepted the appointment on Short Duty service, prior to absorption as RTPs. Neither the policy has been objected at any point of time. Furthermore, when some of the applicants have made an attempt for seeking regularization from the date of their initial appointment in earlier round of litigation i.e. after absorption, vide its order dated 21.1.1999, this Tribunal has negatived relief and has granted limited relief regarding pay scale as referred to above. It is also to be noted that the applicants have accepted the said order and have not challenged the same before the Hon'ble High Court. Almost after more than 20 years, referring to the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of Ernakulam, they have submitted their representation. Therefore, the OA is hopelessly barred by limitation, apart from being hit by res judicata. Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L= Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA VISWESWARA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369e b, SERIALNUMBER= RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 10:41:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 11 OA 020/00753/2019
15. It is also to be noted that, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 01.12.2010 in CA No. 1783/2005 titled as Union of India & Ors v. A. Durairaj, "even if no period of limitation is prescribed, any belated challenge would be liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches". Very recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 5027 of 2024, in the matter of Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley & Others, observed as under:
13. Reiterating the aspect of delay and laches would disentitle the discretionary relief being granted, this Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board and others v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 has held:
"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant -- a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time"
and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis."
In view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court direction, conveyed vide DOPT letter dt. 17.03.1998, as a general policy, the employees are not entitled for any regularization of RTP service rendered by them as Short Duty for grant of consequential benefits. As already referred, the relief of regularization of services from the date of initial appointment as SDTLS/SDTAS was not acceded to by this Tribunal in the earlier OA 1053/1997 and after more than 20 years, the applicants once again approached this Tribunal for the similar relief. Thus, the OA is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay, laches and res judicata. Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L= Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA VISWESWARA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369e b, SERIALNUMBER= RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 10:41:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 12 OA 020/00753/2019
16. In view of the above, the OA is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.
(Shalini Misra) (Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Member(A) Member(J)
/evr/
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L= Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA VISWESWARA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369e b, SERIALNUMBER= RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 10:41:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0