Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur
Hari Shankar Swami vs M/O Communications on 20 February, 2024
1 [ OA 303/2012]
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR.
Original Application No. 303/2012
Date of Reserve : 12.02.2024
Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2024
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE DR. AMIT SAHAI, MEMBER (ADMINISTRATIVE)
Hari Shankar Swamy S/o Sh. Gopal Das Swami, aged about 53 years,
resident of Village Sajnasar, Tehsil Sardarshehar, District Churu at
present employed on the post of Senior Telephone Operating Assistant
(General) in the office of SDE, Sardarshehar, BSNL, District Churu.
.......Applicant
[By Advocate:Mr. J.K.Mishra]
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Communication and Info. Technology, Department of
Telecom, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.
2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through its Chairman & Managing
Director, Corporate Office, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Harish
Chander Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi.
3. The Chief General Manger (Telecommunications), Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited, Rajasthan Telecom Circle, C-Scheme, Sardar Patel
Marg, Jaipur - 302 008.
4. Sh. Sita Ram Sharma, Sr. TOA (P), Office of the SDE BSNL,
Sardarshehar, District Churu.
........Respondents
[By Advocates: Mr. B.L.Bishnoi for R-1 and Mr. Dinesh Purhoit
proxy for Mr. Rajesh Shah, for the BSNL]
2 [ OA 303/2012]
O R D E R
Per Rameshwar Vyas, Member (J) Being aggrieved by the date of his regularisation, the applicant has impugned the communication dated 12.01.2012 (Annex.A/1) whereby, he was again intimated that representation for his regularisation w.e.f. 20.09.1990 instead of 21.10.1994, had already been decided vide order dated 03.04.2008 (Annex.A/8).
2. Facts of the case in brief are as under :-
The applicant was recruited as a Short Duty Telephone Operator (SDTO) on 16.01.1981. His services were terminated on 19.06.1982.
The applicant along with 9 similarly situated employees filed separate OAs before the Principal Bench, New Delhi against their termination order and prayed for their reinstatement with back wages as also for their regularisation. The Principal Bench decided that OAs including OA of the applicant No1833/1987 on 18.05.1990. While allowing the OAs, the respondents were directed to reinstate the applicants and thereafter to consider their regularisation in accordance with the scheme prepared by them and till then they shall be paid minimum pay scale of regularly employed workmen in the respective post.
3. In compliance of the directions issued by the Principal Bench, the applicant was reinstated as SDTO and posted in the TR Section of TDE, Nagaur w.e.f. 20.09.1990. Vide order dated 06.10.1994, the applicant was regularised on the post of Telephone Operator (Annex.A/10). It is averred that applicant made several representations for seeking his regular appointment from the date of his reinstatement i.e. 20.09.1990, copy of one of his representation dated 18.03.2008 (Annex.A/7) has 3 [ OA 303/2012] been placed on record by the applicant. Vide order dated 03.04.2008, the prayer of the applicant to prepone his date of regularisation was not accepted. The applicant again submitted a representation on 29.11.2011 (Annex.A/9). Thereupon, vide communication dated 12.01.2012 (Annex.A/1),impugned herein, the applicant was informed that his representation had already been dismissed vide order dated 03.04.2008 and the applicant was again apprised with the grounds for rejecting his prayer. Being aggrieved with not changing the date of his regularisation, applicant has approached this Tribunal on 21.05.2012.
It is the case of applicant that his claim was not considered for absorption as per the Scheme of regularisation of SDTO from the due dates for the obvious reason that he was not in employment on account of his termination which came to be set aside. It has been stated in the application that the department did not find it expedient to treat his service as continuous. It is the claim of applicant that he ought to have been regularised from the date of his reinstatement. It is further averred that the points raised in the representation have not been examined while passing the order dated 03.04.2008 (Annex.A/8). It is pleaded that official respondents acted on the premise that termination was good enough and justified up to the date it was set aside. The applicant further stated that reinstatement means bringing/restoring someone on his earlier position which he had been holding at the time of i.e. termination. Terming the action of the respondents in not treating his services as illegal, the applicant has prayed to direct the respondents to quash and set aside the communication dated 12.01.2012 (Annex.A/1). He also seeks a parity with the respondent No. 4 herein.
4 [ OA 303/2012]
4. As per reply filed by the respondents, applicant has not disclosed as to when the cause of action arose first time. By filing representation after more than a decade, he cannot extend the period of limitation. In compliance of the order passed by Principal Bench of this Tribunal, the applicant was posted as TO vide order dated 06.10.1994, that too, after giving age relaxation to him by the competent authority. The applicant's name was not in the panel of RTP TO (Annex.R/1/3), hence, he could not have been considered for regularisation. The matter had already attained finality and cannot be reopened by filing representation after one and a half decade.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. It is the case of the applicant that he should have been regularised w.e.f. 20.03.1990. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents while relying upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of UOI & Ors. Vs. Dr. Som Prakash Joshi [D.B.(Civil) Writ Petition No. 14742/2016] as also the judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Basawaraj & Anr. Vs. The Special land Acquisition Officer [reported in AIR 2014 SC 746], contended that appellant did not raise any grievance against his regularization order passed in the year 1990, therefore, appellant's claim with regard to regularisation, has already attained its finality.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for applicant and material available on record, it is not in dispute that after termination of his services as Short Duty Telephone Operator till his reinstatement/regularisation order issued on 20.09.1990 in compliance of the order passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 5 [ OA 303/2012] 1833/1987 with connected OAs, the applicant was not in service. Perusal of the order dated 18.05.1990 passed in these OAs, discloses that while setting aside the termination order of the applicants therein the respondents were directed to reinstate them with condition that they shall not be entitled for payment of any back wages. The Principal Bench did not direct to treat the period as in continuity in service during which the applicants remained out of service. In our considered view, the applicant is now estopped to raise the issue of treating applicant's services in continuation of his previous service.
8. Further more, this O.A is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of gross delay and latches on his part in not challenging the order of regularisation passed in the year 1994 about 18 years ago.No reasons even have been assigned for not raising his grievance against the date of his regularisation w.e.f. 21.10.1994 for so many years. It is also pertinent to note that for the first time the applicant made a representation in the year 2008 which was dismissed vide order dated 03.04.2008 (Annex.A/8) and thereafter, the applicant did not choose to challenge it. In our considered opinion not raising a grievance in a reasonable time with regard to date of regularisation as also not challenging the order dated 03.04.2008, this O.A. is not sustainable. The applicant has abused the process of law by raising a stale issue finalised more than 15 years ago. There is thus no merit in this Original application, hence, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(AMIT SAHAI) (RAMESHWAR VYAS) Member(A) Member (J) mehta 6 [ OA 303/2012]