Supreme Court - Daily Orders
B.S.N.L. vs K. Jayaram Shetty (D) Th. Lrs. Etc. on 23 January, 2014
Ú5
ITEM NO.109 COURT NO.12 SECTION IVA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2370 OF 2007
B.S.N.L. Appellant (s)
VERSUS
K. JAYARAM SHETTY (D) TH. LRS. ETC. Respondent(s)
Date: 23/01/2014 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
For Appellant(s) Mr. R.D. Agarwala,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Pavan Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Prithvi Pal,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Though served, nobody appears for the opponents. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs in terms of the signed order.
|(Sarita Purohit) | |(Sneh Bala Mehra) | |Court Master | |Assistant Registrar | (Signed order is placed on the file) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2370 OF 2007 B.S.N.L. ...APPELLANT(s) Vs. K. JAYARAM SHETTY (D) TH. LRS. ETC. ...RESPONDENT(s) O R D E R Though served, nobody appears for the opponents.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the Biennial Cadre Review Scheme (hereinafter referred to as "BCR Scheme") dated 16th October, 1990, and the impugned judgment.
The grievance which has been ventilated in the appeal by the appellant-employer is that the High Court committed an error by directing the appellant that even in the matter of upgradation under the BCR Scheme, the policy with regard to reservation should be followed.
..2/-
.2.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the issue involved in the appeal has been squarely covered under the judgment delivered by this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. R. Santhakumari Velusamy & Ors. [(2011) 9 SCC 510]. Relevant paragraphs from the afore-stated judgment are reproduced hereinbelow :
"30. In this case, the BCR scheme did not involve creation of additional posts but merely restructured the existing posts as a result of which 10% of the posts in Grade III were placed in a higher grade (Grade IV) to give relief against stagnation. This is evident from the terms of the BCR scheme and the clarification contained in the letter dated 7.5.1993 that no posts were sanctioned, as far as 10% BCR was concerned.
31. In this case, the BCR scheme dated 16.10.1990 provided that the persons who had completed 26 years of service would be screened by a duly constituted Review Committee to assess the performance and suitability for advancement. The screening was for the limited purpose of finding out whether the service record of the employee contained any adverse entries or whether the employee had suffered punishment. The screening process did not involve consideration of comparative merit nor involve any selection. The 10% posts were upgraded strictly by seniority subject to screening. This is evident from the terms of BCR scheme and the Circular dated 13.12.1995 which provided that the 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 as per OTBP manner, that is screening to ascertain whether there are any adverse comments or punishment against the employee concerned.
..3/-
.3.
32. To sum up, 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 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."
Upon perusal of the afore-stated paragraphs, it is clear that no reservation is to be provided while giving benefit of upgradation under the BCR Scheme dated 16th October, 1990 and the High Court has committed an error by not considering the afore-stated fact and by ordering grant of reservation even in the case of upgradation.
Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the High Court, confirming the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, is quashed and set aside in terms ..4/-
.4.
of the order passed by this Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. R. Santhakumari Velusamy & Ors. (supra). The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
..............J. [ANIL R. DAVE] ..............J. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR] New Delhi;
23rd January, 2014.