Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
R Dushandan vs Department Of Telecommunication on 28 June, 2024
1 OA 1246 to 1255/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01246/2017 to OA/310/01255/2017
Dated, Friday, the 28th day of June, Two Thousand Twenty Four
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. MANISH GARG, Member (J)
&
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, Member (A)
OA 1246/2017
1. T.S.Viswanathan
DGM (IT) Retd.,
BSNL, Chennai Telephone District
65 Years,S/o.T.K.Subramanian
G-1, Sri Lakshmi Apartments,
8/12, Varadappan Street, West Mambalam,
Chennai-600 033
2. K.M.Rajkumar DGM Retd.,
BSNL, Chennai Telephone District
64 Years, S/o.K.Meenakshisundaram,
Old 12, New 1, Muthumari Amman Koil Street,
Opp. Anna Arch, Sandrorpalayam,
Arumbakkam, Chennai-600 010 ... Applicants
By Advocate M/s. Menon, Karthik, Mukundan & Neelakantan
Vs
1. Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary to Government,
Department of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi.
2. The Chairman & Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
H.C. Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi-110001
3. The Chief General Manager,
Chennai Telephones, 89,
Millers Road, Chennai-600 010
4. The Deputy General Manager (HR & Admin)
The Office of the Chief General Manager,
Chennai Telephones, 89,
Millers Road, Chennai-600 010 ... Respondents
By Advocate Mr. S.Nagarajan (R-1)
Mr.S.Udayakumar (R2-4)
2 OA 1246 to 1255/2017
OA 1247/2017
1. K. Jayaraman
Aged about 66 years
S/o. V.KRISHNAMURTHY,
Residing at FLAT-E, AKSHAYA,
No 79, DR.R.P.ROAD, NEHRU NAGAR,
CHROMEPET, CHENNAI-600044.
2. S. Srinivasan,
Aged about 66 years,
S/o. T.M.SUNDARAM,
Residing at "SRI MANGALA NIVAS",
C-6, KURUNJI NAGAR, 2 RD MAIN ROAD,
RAMAPURAM, CHENNAI-600089
3. V. Ragothaman,
Aged about 64 years
S/O S.VASUDEVAN, Residing at F1,
ROYAL COURT APARTMENT,
BALAIYAH GARDEN, MADIPAKKAM,
CHENNAI-600091.
4. G. Krishnan,
Aged about 64 years
S/o. A.GOPALAN,
Residing at ΝΟ 17/8, 26 TH STREET,
THILLAI GANGA NAGAR, CHENNAI- 600061.
5. S.R. Pattabiraman,
Aged about 67 years
S/o. S.B.RAMACHARI,
Residing at 628, FIRST STREET,
NEHRU NAGAR, PERUMANDI PANCHAYAT,
KUMBAKONAM-600002.
6. J. Rajeswari,
Aged about 63 years
W/O. K.JAYARAMAN,
Residing at FLAT-E, AKSHAYA,
No 79, DR.R.P.ROAD, NEHRU NAGAR,
CHROMEPET, CHENNAI-600044.
7. M. Shanmugam,
Aged about 65 years
S/o. M.MUNUSAMY,
Residing at PLOT NO 174,
6 TH STREET, MALLESWARI NAGAR,
MADAMPAKKAM, CHENNAI-600126.
8. V.S. Raghavan,
Aged about 66 years
S/O V.SRINIVASAN,
Residing at NO 1/5,
5 TH STREET EXTENSION, LAKSHMI NAGAR,
NANGANALLUR, CHENNAI-600061.
9. V. Sundar,
Aged about 63 years
S/o. V.VENKATANARAYANAN,
Residing at 2 F, "GALAXI FLATS" 43-B,
JOTHIRAMALINGAM STREET,
MADIPAKKAM, CHENNAI-600091. ... Applicants
3 OA 1246 to 1255/2017
By Advocate M/s. Menon, Karthik, Mukundan & Neelakantan
Vs
1. Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary to Government,
Department of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi.
2. The Chairman & Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
H.C. Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi-110001
3. The Chief General Manager (Maintenance),
Southern Telecom Region, 11, Link Road,
Ganapathy Colony, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
4. The Chief General Manager, Tamil Nadu Circle,
16, New Administrative Bldg., 5th Floor,
Greams Road, Chennai 600 006.
5. The Chief General Manager, Southern Telecom Projects,
25, BSNL Towers, Greenways Lane,
RA Puram, Chennai 600 0288.
6. The Chief General Manager, Chennai Telephones,
89, Millers Road, Chennai - 600 010 ... Respondents
By Advocate Mr. S.Nagarajan (R-1)
Mr.S.Udayakumar (R2-6)
OA No.1248/2017
1. V.Visveswaran,
DE TN Retd. 67 Years,
S/o.C.R.Venkataratnam, 7E, Anand Nagar,
P.N.Pudur, Coimbatore-641041.
2. M.Devarajan
DE TN Retd.,66 Years,
S/o.Mani No.413, 6th Cross,
Arokiya Nagar, N.K.Road,
Thanjavur - 613006
3. U.Muthusamy
DE TN Retd.,65 Years,
S/o.M.Udaiyar,10-7/33, Sarayu Nathi Street,
Mahatma Gandhi Nagar,Madurai -625 014
4. R.Jeyabalan
DE TN Retd.,65 Years,
S/o.V.Ramasamy,
7/1195, Annai Theresa Street,
NGO Colony,Nagamalai,
Madurai 625 019 ... Applicants
By Advocate M/s. Menon, Karthik, Mukundan & Neelakantan
4 OA 1246 to 1255/2017
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary to Government,
Department of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi.
2. The Chairman & Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
H.C. Mathur Lane, Janpath,
New Delhi-110001
3. The Chief General Manager, Tamilnadu Circle,
No.16, New Administrative Building,
5th floor, Greams Road, Chennai-600 006
4. The Deputy General Manager (HR)
The Office of the Chief General Manager,
Tamilnadu Circle, No.16,
New Administrative Building,
5th floor, Greams Road,
Chennai - 600 006 ...Respondents
By Advocate Mr. S.Nagarajan (R-1)
Mr.S.Udayakumar (R2-4)
OA No.1249/2017
1. A.Anantharaman
DE STR Rted. 65 Years,
S/o.T.P.Akshayam,
9B, 14th Street, Iyappa Nagar,
Madipakkam, Chennai-600 091.
2. A.Nallathambi
DE STR Retd. 65 Years,
S/o.Akambara Udayar No.283,
Ganapathy Nagar, Old Housing Unit,
Laksha Thoppu, Pattukottai - 614602 ... Applicants
By Advocate M/s. Menon, Karthik, Mukundan & Neelakantan
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary to Government,
Department of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi.
2. The Chairman & Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
H.C. Mathur Lane, Janpath,
New Delhi-110001
3. The Chief General Manager (Maintenance)
Southern Telecom Region, 11, Link Road,
Ganapathy Colony, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
5 OA 1246 to 1255/2017
4. The General Manager (HQ)
The Chief General Manager (Maintenance)
Southern Telecom Region, 11, Link Road,
Ganapathy Colony, Guindy,
Chennai - 600 032. ...Respondents
By Advocate Mr. S.Nagarajan (R-1)
Mr.S.Udayakumar (R2-4)
OA No.1250/2017
K.Arivumani
DE STP C/o.Sri.Vinod Kumar
No.43, Ayyasivaguru Apts.,
4th Main Road, Anna Nagar West Extn.,
Velachery, Chennai - 600 042 ....Applicant
By Advocate M/s. Menon, Karthik, Mukundan & Neelakantan
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary to Government,
Department of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi.
2. The Chairman & Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
H.C. Mathur Lane, Janpath,
New Delhi-110001.
3. The Chief General Manager,
Southern Telecom Projects,
25, BSNL Towers, Greenways Lane,
RA Puram, Chennai 600 028 ...Respondents
By Advocate Mr. S.Nagarajan (R-1)
Mr.S.Udayakumar (R2 & 3)
OA No.1251/2017
B.Aravindalochanan
DE STP Retd.5E, Lakshman Apartments,
22nd Street, Thillai Ganga Nagar,
Chennai - 600 061 ....Applicant
6 OA 1246 to 1255/2017
By Advocate M/s. Menon, Karthik, Mukundan & Neelakantan
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary to Government,
Department of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi.
2. The Chairman & Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
H.C. Mathur Lane, Janpath,
New Delhi-110001.
3. The Chief General Manager,
Southern Telecom Projects, 25, BSNL Towers,
Greenways Lane, RA Puram,
Chennai 600 028 ...Respondents
By Advocate Mr. S.Nagarajan (R-1)
Mr.S.Udayakumar (R2 & 3)
OA No.1252/2017
R.Dushandan
DE STP Retd.
Raghav Mandhir Punniyam,
Arumanai Post, Kuzhiththurai,
Kanniyakumari - 629151 ....Applicant
By Advocate M/s. Menon, Karthik, Mukundan & Neelakantan
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary to Government,
Department of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi.
2. The Chairman & Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
H.C. Mathur Lane, Janpath,
New Delhi-110001
3. The Chief General Manager,
Southern Telecom Projects,
25, BSNL Towers, Greenways Lane,
RA Puram, Chennai 600 028 ...Respondents
By Advocate Mr. S.Nagarajan (R-1)
Mr.S.Udayakumar (R2 & 3)
7 OA 1246 to 1255/2017
OA No.1253/2017
L.Natarajan
Lakshmi Flats, 3/2, 8th Street,
Thillai Ganga Nagar, Chennai - 600 061 ....Applicant
By Advocate M/s. Menon, Karthik, Mukundan & Neelakantan
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary to Government,
Department of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi.
2. The Chairman & Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
H.C. Mathur Lane, Janpath,
New Delhi-110001.
3. The Chief General Manager,
Southern Telecom Projects,
25, BSNL Towers, Greenways Lane,
RA Puram, Chennai 600 028. ....Respondents
By Advocate Mr. S.Nagarajan (R-1)
Mr.S.Udayakumar (R2 & 3)
OA No.1254/2017
P.Varadharajan
D4, Ground Floor, Vasanth Apartments,
68-69, Gowdia Mutt Road,
Royapettah, Chennai-600 014 ....Applicant
By Advocate M/s. Menon, Karthik, Mukundan & Neelakantan
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary to Government,
Department of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi.
2. The Chairman & Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
H.C. Mathur Lane, Janpath,
New Delhi-110001
8 OA 1246 to 1255/2017
3. The Chief General Manager,
Southern Telecom Projects, 25,
BSNL Towers, Greenways Lane,
RA Puram, Chennai 600 028 ....Respondents
By Advocate Mr. S.Nagarajan (R-1)
Mr.S.Udayakumar (R2 & 3)
OA No.1255/2017
T. Edward Raj,
Sr. Sub-Divisional Engineer (Retired),
4/19, Jai Balaji Nagar, 3rd Street,
Nesapakkam, CHENNAI 600 078 ....Applicant
By Advocate M/s. Menon, Karthik, Mukundan & Neelakantan
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary to Government,
Department of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi.
2. The Chairman & Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
H.C. Mathur Lane, Janpath,
New Delhi-110001
3. The Chief General Manager,
Southern Telecom Projects,
25, BSNL Towers, Greenways Lane,
RA Puram, Chennai 600 028 ....Respondents
By Advocate Mr. S.Nagarajan (R-1)
Mr.S.Udayakumar (R2 & 3)
9 OA 1246 to 1255/2017
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member(J))
1. Since the issue involved in the above OAs are common, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. With the consent of both the parties, OA 1246 shall be treated as the lead case in this matter. In the said OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:
"(a) To set aside the order No.AST/LC/2014-15/PT/18 dated 08.08.2016 issued by the 4th Respondent and consequently
(b) direct the respondents to grant the financial Upgradation under the ACP scheme upon completion of 24 years of service from the date of entry as JTO and
(c) revise the pay of the Applicant on the date of absorption in BSNL w.e.f 01.10.2000 by fitting him in the Corresponding IDA scale of pay with all arrears and consequential benefits of promotions, pay fixation, grant of revised pension and other retirement benefits with arrears and
(d) pass such further or other orders as this Honorable tribunal may deem fit and proper and thus render Justice."
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
2.1 The Applicants were recruited as Engineering Supervisors in the year 1975 and was re-designated as Junior Telecom Officers (JTO). As the cadre of JTO in the erstwhile Department Of Telecommunications (DOT) had a huge stagnation, DOT formulated a Lateral Advancement Scheme in June, 1990, which envisages one financial upgradation to the next higher scale of Rs. 2000-60-2300/- for JTOs, who have completed 12 or more years of service from the date of appointment in the cadre of JTO, as on 01-01-1990.10 OA 1246 to 1255/2017
2.2 The Government of India in the year 1999, introduced the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme for the Central Government civilian employees as a "safety net" to deal with the problem of genuine stagnation and hardship faced by the employees due to the lack of adequate promotional avenues. The Department of Telecommunication adopted the ACP scheme but not included J.T.O.(Telecom) in the scheme. Aggrieved by the same, the Applicant and similarly situated employees made requests for extending the ACP scheme and the same was rejected/not acceded to, vide order, dated 02.03.2006.
2.3 Challenging the same, the Applicants and similarly aggrieved persons filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras in the year 2006 under W.P.. No. 25197/2006 and WP. No. 31398/2006 and the same were transferred to this Tribunal as T.A. No. 11 and 12 of 2010. This Hon'ble Tribunal on 01.08.2012 allowed the Applications and directed the Respondents to grant the benefits as applicable under the ACP Scheme.
2.4 Aggrieved by the order of this Tribunal, the Respondents preferred a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras and the same was disposed of with a direction to the Respondents to consider the issue of granting the ACP benefits to the JTOs by keeping in mind the interest of the employees and the object sought to be achieved by the ACP scheme.
Notwithstanding the same, the Respondents have once again rejected the request of extending the ACP Scheme on an erroneous basis that both schemes are one and the same and that a JTO would have been placed in the scale of Rs 8000-275- 13000/- after serving for 24 years from the date of his initial appointment in the grade of JTO and that the ACP scheme is in no way found to be more beneficial (to the Applicants) than the erstwhile Lateral Advancement Scheme.
11 OA 1246 to 1255/20172.5 The learned counsel for the applicant, in support of his relief, would argue that for the JTO (Telecom) & SDE (Telecom), a time bound scheme existed in the erstwhile DOT, w.e.f 1990. Under the scheme, which is prior to the ACP scheme, a JTO was placed as JTO (Lateral Advancement), which is equivalent to SDE in the scale of Rs.7500-250-12000 after completing 12 years in the grade of JTO. He would contend that it is not in dispute that first official promotion was with effect from 1991 onwards. He would contend that the issue is as to which date the applicants are entitled to grant of second financial upgradation. He would contend that a simple reading of the ACP scheme goes to show that for second financial upgradation, 24 years has to be reckoned from the date of appointment and not from the date of first official promotion. Therefore, the respondents have erred in granting the benefits of the second financial upgradation after completion of 28 years to the applicant with effect from 23.09.2003.
2.6 He would further state that despite this being the second round of litigation, where in the last round of litigation, the TAs were disposed of which culminated in filing of Writ Petitions WP Nos.25694 & 27114 of 2013 before the Hon. High Court, wherein the Hon. High Court, vide order, dated 29.03.2016, has observed as under:-
9. From the above cited decision, it is clear that the option to choose a particular scheme vests with the employer. The discretion should be exercised fairly and bonafide, keeping in view the purpose for which it is conferred and the object sought to be achieved, i.e., in order to achieve the substantive object of the ACP Scheme. We therefore, hold that the direction of the Tribunal directing the authorities to extend the benefit at the request of the contesting respondents herein may not be correct. To that extent, the department is justified in moving this Court. But, on the contrary, the direction of the Tribunal to grant the benefits of ACP as extended to the similarly placed employees of JE (Civil and Electrical) to the contesting respondents needs modification to fall in line with the Office Memorandum dated 09.08.1999 granting ACP Ministry of the inasmuch department as concerned the Administrative shall take into consideration the object of the ACP Scheme and take a decision for and on behalf of the employees.
It is for the department concerned to take into consideration the interest of the employees and decide as to whether ACP Scheme would be beneficial to them, keeping in mind their larger interest and exercise the discretion fairly and bonafide.
12 OA 1246 to 1255/2017
10. Accordingly, we direct the Department authorities to consider the request of the contesting respondents seeking the benefits under ACP Schemer exercising its discretion if such scheme would be beneficial to the interest of the employees, in the light of what we have observed above keeping in mind clause 5.1 and 13 of the Office Memorandum dated 9.8.1999. Such exercise to be taken within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 2.7 Pursuant to same, the speaking order has been passed and para 3 of which reads as under:
3. For JTO (Telecom) and SDE (Telecom), a Time Bound Promotion Scheme existed in the erstwhile DOT with effect from 1990. Under this scheme, which is prior to the ACP Scheme, a JTO was placed as JTO (Lateral Advancement) which is equivalent to SDE in the scale of RS.7500-250-12000 after completing 12 years in the grade of JTO and after another 12 years, he was placed in the scale of Rs.8000-275-13500, which is the scale of JTS Gr.A: [Rs.8000-275-13500], a promotional grade of SDE(T) of TES Gr.B. Under- the ACP Scheme which came into existence in Aug 1999 only, a JTO would have been placed in the scale of Rs.8000-275-13500, which is the scale of JTS Gr.A, after serving for 24 years from the date of his initial appointment in the grade of JTO. Since the time period of both the ACP scheme and the earlier existing Time Bound Promotion Scheme of DOT is same and on completion of a period of 24 years, an employee recruited in the grade of JTO would get placed in the scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 through the earlier existing Lateral clause No.13 of Annexure II of the ACP Scheme, no other scheme shall run concurrently with the ACP Scheme. As Lateral Advancement Scheme was applicable for the JTO (T) / SDE (T) cadre in the erstwhile DOT, therefore, ACP scheme was not made applicable in DOT. As per para no.3 of DOT's letter dated 24.11.1999, it was decided that in respect of the cadre of JTO/SDE which is covered by a Time Bound Promotion Scheme, wherein, the eligible officer is placed in the next higher grade after 12 years of service, the existing scheme shall continue and therefore ACP scheme shall not be made applicable (Copy enclosed) 2.8 The applicants' counsel would further contend that JTO (Telecom) had been discriminated whereas other branches of JTO (Civil) and JTO (Electrical) have been brought under the ACP Scheme and that fact was taken note of by this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation wherein the Tribunal has observed as under:-
"The orders of the respondents in order No.3-3/2001-EW dated 21.3.2002 and order No.3-1/2001-CWG dated 1.9.2003, shows that financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme was extended to the officials of Electrical Wing. Regarding this contention of the applicants, the only point mentioned by the respondents is that the Recruitment Rules for the post of J.T.O. (Civil) and J.T.O.(Electrical) are entirely different from that 13 OA 1246 to 1255/2017 of J.T.O., Telecom Engineering and therefore no comparison can be made between these two services. But the reason given by the respondents for denying the benefit under the ACP Scheme to the applicants was that they have drawn the benefits under the Lateral Advancement Scheme. The copy of the orders dated 9.5.1991 shows that the J.T.Os of Civil and Electrical were also given the benefit under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme and yet they were given the benefit under ACP Scheme as per the order Nos.3- 3/2001-EW dated 21.3.2002 and order No.3-1/2001-CWG dated 1.9.2003. The Instructions and orders viz clause 13 of the Ο.Μ.Νο.35034/1/97-Estt(D) dated 9.8.1999 and order No. No.4-1/99- PAT dated 24.11.1999 which are cited for denying the benefit to the applicants should be equally applicable to the JTOs of Civil/Electrical wing also because they were also given the benefits under Time Bound Promotion Scheme."
2.9 He would further submit that as directed by the Hon. High Court, no comparative analysis had been drawn by the respondents before rejecting the applicants' case and hence the impugned order does not sustain in the eyes of law. He would further contend that extension of the benefit of ACP scheme was not dependent upon the Time Bound Promotion Scheme, which was already existing in place. He relies upon the Time Bound Promotion Scheme, dated 26.06.1990. The said scheme is reproduced as under:
"The scheme to improve the service prospects in the cadre of Junior Telecom Officers has been engaging the attention of the Telecom Commission. It has now been decided to introduce a scheme for lateral advancement of JTOs to the higher scale of Rs-2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500/-, through matching savings.
The following instructions are hereby issued for implementation of the scheme:-
(i) The JTOs who have completed 12 years of service since the date of appointment in the cadre of Engineering Supervisor/JE/J.T.0 as on 1.1.1990 and onwards will be placed in the higher scale of Rs.2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-
100-3500/-.
(ii) The scheme will take effect from 1.1.1990. In case of officials who have completed 12 years of service in the cadre of E.S./J.E./J.T.O. before 1-1-1990, the placement in the higher scale of pay will take effect from 1.1.1990.
(iii) In case of E.S./J.E./J.T.Os who complete 12 years of service in the cadre after 1.1.1990, the lateral advancement will be given effect to from the day following the date of completion of 12 years of service.
(iv) Placement in the higher scale, as stipulated above, will be subject to fitness and vigilance clearance.
(v) On lateral placement in the scale of Rs.2000-3500/- under this scheme, pay will be fixed under the provisions of FR 22.I (a) (I) subject to the condition that, 14 OA 1246 to 1255/2017 on promotion to the TES Group B, the official will continue to draw pay in the same scale without refixation.
(vi) JTOs on placement in the higher scale under this scheme will continue to perform the duties of JTOs.
vii) The placement in higher scale of Rs.2000-3500 is on non-functional basis and does not amount to Promotion. Reservation for SC/ST will therefore not apply in this case.
(viii) This scheme of lateral advancement is on the basis of matching savings. For lateral advancement of every 5 JTOS, one existing post of JTO will be brought under reduction. The matching saving will be made available by the cadre controlling authority in consultation with his I.F.A.
3. A report on the number of posts of J.T.Os placed in the higher scale and the number of existing JTOs posts abolished as a result of these orders may be sent to A.D.G. (ST-C) within 3 (three) months from the date of issue of these orders. The report may please be got certified by the I. F.A." 2.10 The applicants' counsel does not dispute the fact that the said scheme talk about one upgradation which the applicants have got w.e.f 01.01.1990, i.e., after completion of 15 years and the first official promotion from JTO to SDE in the year 1991, i.e., after completion of 16 years. He would contend that the first financial upgradation was independent and ACP scheme came into effect on 09.08.1999, therefore the first financial was treated as equivalent to first ACP. On the said analogy, the applicant should be entitled to grant of second financial upgradation after completion of 24 years from the date of entry. He would further contend that subsequently another scheme was framed by the respondents, vide communication, dated 25.09.1990, which was applicable for Assistant Engineers who have put in 12 years of service in the said post. He relies upon para 2 of the same, which is extracted hereunder:-
(ii)Eligibility and basis for promotion:
Assistant Engineers in TES Group 'B' who have completed 12 years of regular and continuous service as Assistant Engineers will be eligible for consideration for promotion to these posts of Senior Assistant Engineers. The promotion will be on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit. The pay on promotion will be fixed under FR 22(C).15 OA 1246 to 1255/2017
2.11 By virtue of this, he would contend that this scheme has been considered by the respondents as official upgradation and therefore he would contend that the prerequisite as stipulated here which was more beneficial has been taken with regard to present application. CFA lastly argues that in the Consolidated List of SDEs in Chennai Telephones in the year 2002, as circulated by the CFR, for one of the applicants T.S.Viswanathan, at S. No. 688, the respondents themselves have stated that the ACP scheme is more beneficial. He also relies upon para 4.6 of the OA, which is reproduced as under:
"If the applicants are granted the benefit of the ACP Scheme, he would have secured the pay scale of Senior SDE as on 09.08.1999 in as much as he has completed 24 years of service then. As a further consequent, he would have been entitled for an additional benefit under the executive promotion policy of BSNL which was introduced w.e.f 01.10.2004, whereby he would have secured the first time bound promotion upon completion of four years in the pay scale w.e.f 01.10.2004 in the next higher pay scale of Divisional Engineer (DE). Further, upon completion of another 5 years he would have been granted the next higher pay scale upon completion of five years of service w.e.f 01.10.2009 by way of second time bound promotion".
2.12 Being aggrieved the applicants have filed the present OAs.
3. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their reply statement refuting all the allegations made in the OA, except those which are admitted on facts.
3.1 It has been contended that that the JTO and SDE Telecom cadre were benefited by a Time Bound Scheme as early as on 01.01.1990, whereas ACP Scheme was implemented in August, 1999. The comparison of the applicants with JE (Civil/Electrical) cadres or other cadres of erstwhile DOT is totally wrong. The cadres who were not covered earlier under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme were given the benefit of ACP Scheme. Department of Telecom, vide letter, dated 24.11.1999, had clearly mentioned about the 16 OA 1246 to 1255/2017 same. As such there has been no discrimination with JTO and SDE of Telecom cadre. It is submitted that the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, dt.29.03.2016, in the matter has been complied with by the Department, keeping in mind the larger interest and provisions in clause 5.1 and 13 of the OM dated 09.08.1999. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
3.2 Countering the argument put forth by CFA, the respondent counsel would rely upon the averment made in counter affidavit. He would rely upon paras 17, 21, 23 and 27 of the reply statement which are extracted as under:-
"17. ...it is submitted that JE (Civil) and JE (Electrical) were never placed at par with JTO in the Department of Telecom and they were altogether from a different stream. They continued to be placed in the lower scale of pay of Rs.1440-40-1800- 50-2300/- when JEs of Engineering wing were re-designated as JTOs and were placed in the scale of Rs. 1640-60-2600- 75-2800/- in the year 1986. The Time Bound Up-gradation scheme was implemented with effect from 01.01.1990 in respect of the JTO and SDE of Telecom Cadres. However there was no such scheme in respect of JE (Civil) and JE (Electrical) cadres, therefore the ACP scheme was made applicable in respect of those cadres only. The submission of the applicants that there was a different financial up-gradation scheme for JE of Civil and Electrical cadre is completely wrong and strongly denied.
Further, the Administrative Ministry while issuing order, dated 24.11.1999, for applicability of ACP scheme in Department of Telecommunication Services, had clearly mentioned the reason as to why the scheme is not applicable in respect of JTO and SDE of Telecom cadre and, therefore the submission of the applicant in this regard is totally wrong.
21. It is submitted that under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme, which was introduced by the Administrative Ministry prior to the ACP scheme, a JTO was placed in the SDE scale of Rs.2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100- 3500/- corresponding to scale of Rs.7500-250-12000 of 5th CPC after completing 12 years in the grade of JTO and after another 12 years in the grade of SDE(T), he was placed in the scale of Rs. 8000-275-13500, which is the scale of JTS Group-A (Rs 8000-275-13500), a promotional grade of SDE(T) of TES Group-B. Under the ACP scheme which came into existence in August 1999 only, a JTO would have been placed in the scale of Rs.8000-275-13500, which is the scale of JTS Group-A after serving for 24 years from the date of his initial appointment in the grade of JTO. Since the time period of both the ACP schemes and the earlier existing Time Bound Promotion Scheme of DOT is same and on 17 OA 1246 to 1255/2017 completion of a period of 24 years, an employee recruited in the grade of JTO would get placed in the scale of Rs.8000-275-13500/- through the earlier existing Lateral Advancement Scheme. Therefore, the ACP scheme was in no way found to be more beneficial than the erstwhile Lateral Advancement Scheme/Time Bound Promotion Scheme of DOT which was effective from 1990. It is also relevant to mention that, under the LA scheme if a JTO who got promoted to the grade of SDE by means of LDCE in say 5 years, he would be getting the Sr.SDE scale in next 17 (5+12) years instead of 24 years as necessary under the ACP scheme. By this way, the Lateral Advancement Scheme was more beneficial to the employees. Similarly, under the LA scheme in case a JTO who got promotion to the grade of SDE by Seniority cum fitness method before 12 years of service would be getting the Sr.SDE scale before 24 years. In other words, the applicants have not given true picture of the benefit of the LA Scheme introduced in the year 1990.
23. In addition, the following facts are also relevant to the case of the applicants.
i) A Time Bound Promotion Scheme (LA Scheme) already existed in the DOT regime.
ii) DOT had already decided the issue in the year 1999 (Order No.4- 1/99- PAT dated 24.11.1999) and had categorically ordered that in respect JTO and SDE of Telecom cadre which are covered by a Time Bound Promotion Scheme wherein, the eligible officer is placed in the next higher grade after 12 years of service, the existing scheme shall continue and therefore the ACP shall not be made applicable.
iii) Under the LA Scheme the applicants have availed the benefit with effect from 1990 much before the coming of ACP Scheme in the year 1999.
iv) The applicants have taken absorption in BSNL in the year 2000 and therefore, are to be governed by the terms and conditions of the absorption and the policy framed in BSNL.
v) As per Rule 37-A of CCS ( Pension) Rules 1972, the service rendered by the applicants in Government and BSNL period are to be treated as combined service and, therefore, they would be entitled for two financial up-gradations only in the Government and BSNL period taken together in view of clause 5.1 of the ACP scheme. Whereas, as per BSNL Policy in continuation to the policy adopted in DOT period, they will be entitled for more than two Time Bound Up-gradations depending upon length of service in BSNL.
Keeping all the above conditions and facts in view the competent authority in the Department did not find any merit in the request of the applicants for grant of the ACP Scheme and rejected the same. It is submitted that the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras dt.29.03.2016 in the matter has been complied with by the Department keeping in mind the larger interest and provisions in clause 5.1 and 13 of the OM dated 09.08.1999.
18 OA 1246 to 1255/2017
27. With regard to Ground (d), it is submitted that the JTO and SDE Telecom cadre were benefited by a time bound scheme as early as 01.01.1990 whereas ACP Scheme was implemented in Aug'1999.The comparison of the applicants with JE (Civil/Electrical) cadres or other cadres of erstwhile DOT is totally wrong. The cadres who were not covered earlier under the time bound promotions scheme were given the benefit of ACP Scheme. Department of Telecom vide letter dated 24.11.1999 had clearly mentioned about the same. As such there has been no discrimination with JTO and SDE of Telecom cadre." 3.3 The respondents' counsel has also produced a comparative chart and also relied upon the various decisions of the Tribunal as well as the Hon. Apex Court. He relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon. Apex Court reported in Union of India and Ors. vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair (2020) 5 SCC 421, and the relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
"30. The learned Amicus Curiae and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents urged the court to adopt a "purposive interpretation" that the words "immediate next higher Grade Pay" to be interpreted as "Grade Pay of the next promotional post" in the hierarchy. MACP Scheme envisages merely placement in the immediate next higher Grade Pay. By perusal of the MACP Scheme extracted earlier, it is seen that the words used in the Scheme are "placement in the immediate next higher Grade Pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands". The term "Grade Pay in the next promotional post" is conspicuously absent in the entire body of the MACP Scheme. The argument of the respondents that the benefit of MACP Scheme is referable to the promotional post, is de hors the MACP Scheme and cannot be accepted. Though ACP and MACP Schemes are intended to provide relief against stagnation, both the Schemes have different features. Pay scales under the Sixth Pay Commission and the MACP Scheme are stated to be more beneficial since it extends to the employees with time intervals with higher pay bands and various facilities which were not available under the ACP Scheme including the three financial upgradations in shorter time span. In any event, MACP Scheme has not been challenged by the respondents. As rightly contended by the learned ASG, the respondents cannot be permitted to cherry-pick beneficial features from the erstwhile ACP Scheme and also take advantage of the beneficial features in the MACP Scheme.
31. The object behind the MACP Scheme is to provide relief against the stagnation. If the arguments of the respondents are to be accepted, they would be entitled to be paid in accordance with the grade pay offered to a promotee; but yet not assume the responsibilities of a promotee. As submitted on behalf of Union of India, if the employees are entitled to enjoy Grade Pay in the next promotional hierarchy, without the commensurate responsibilities as a matter of routine, it would have an adverse impact on the efficiency of administration.
32. The change in policy brought about by supersession of ACP Scheme with the MACP Scheme is after consideration of all the disparities and the representations of the employees. The Sixth Central Pay Commission is an expert body which has comprehensively examined all the issues and the representations as also the issue of stagnation and at the same time to promote efficiency in the functioning of the departments. MACP Scheme has been introduced on the recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission which has been accepted by the Government of India. After accepting the recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the ACP Scheme was withdrawn and the same was superseded by the MACP Scheme with effect from 19 OA 1246 to 1255/2017 01.09.2008. This is not some random exercise which is unilaterally done by the Government, rather, it is based on the opinion of the expert body - Sixth Central Pay Commission which has examined all the issues, various representations and disparities. Before making the recommendation for the Pay Scale/Revised Pay Scale, the Pay Commission takes into consideration the existing pay structure, the representations of the government servants and various other factors after which the recommendations are made. When the expert body like Pay Commission has comprehensively examined all the issues and representations and also took note of inter-departmental disparities owing to varying promotional hierarchies, the court should not interfere with the recommendations of the expert body. When the government has accepted the recommendation of the Pay Commission and has also implemented those, any interference by the court would have a serious impact on the public exchequer.
.....
56. The ACP Scheme which is now superseded by MACP Scheme is a matter of government policy. Interference with the recommendations of the expert body like Pay Commission and its recommendations for the MACP, would have serious impact on the public exchequer. The recommendations of the Pay Commission for MACP Scheme has been accepted by the Government and implemented. There is nothing to show that the Scheme is arbitrary or unjust warranting interference. Without considering the advantages in the MACP Scheme, the High Courts erred in interfering with the government's policy in accepting the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission by simply placing reliance upon Raj Pal's case. The impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside."
3.4 The learned counsel for the respondents would also contend that the schemes are not challenged by the applicants.
4. Countering in rejoinder to the argument put forth by the respondents' counsel, the applicants' counsel states that it is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as it relates to the MACP Scheme. He would contend that the present case pertains only to ACP Scheme.
5. Heard the learned counsels, Mr.Karthik Rajan for the applicant and Mr.S.Udayakumar and Mr.S.Nagarajan for the respondents and perused the records.
6. ANALYSIS 6.1 From what has been narrated herein above is that, having availed the benefit of the scheme which talks about one upgradation, which the applicants have got w.e.f 01.01.1990, after completion of 15 years, and the first official promotion from JTO to SDE in the year 1991, i.e., after 20 OA 1246 to 1255/2017 completion of 16 years, can it be said that the time bound promotion can be interlinked with ACP/MACP or can it be said that once the applicants who have availed the benefit at relevant point of time, as the applicants would contend, they are still entitled to the financial up-gradation under ACP/MACP, at a later stage.
6.2 The purpose of the ACP/MACP benefits cannot be ignored. In CIVIL APPEAL NO.6995 OF 2021 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 9042 OF 2019) - PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. VERSUS BAL KRISHAN SHARMA & ORS., decided on 23.11.2021, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :-
"In the instant case, apart from the fact that the respondents had not challenged the validity of the said office order dated 29.03.1990 in the writ petition on the ground that it was not notified as per Section 79 of the said Act, the PSEB having already framed the Regulations of 1965 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 79(c) of the said Act, and the said Regulations having also been published in the Official Gazette, there was no need for the PSEB to notify the office order dated 29.03.1990 which pertained to the upgradation of 20% of the posts of Junior Engineer15 II (Civil), as was permissible under Regulation 17 of the said Regulations. 17. It may be further be noted that after the issuance of the said office order dated 29.03.1990, the PSEB had issued another office order dated 23.04.1990, to overcome the problem of stagnation prevailing amongst the various cadres of regular employees of the Board. The said office order dated 23.04.1990 which has been heavily relied upon by the respondents in the instant case, had come up for consideration before this Court in case of Bhakra Beas Management Board vs. Krishan Kumar Vij and Anr. (supra). In the said case, this Court was required to consider whether in the light of the order/circular issued by the Bhakra Beas Management Board, pursuant to the office order dated 23.04.1990 issued by the PSEB, the concerned Assistant Engineer (Civil) was 21 OA 1246 to 1255/2017 entitled to the benefit of the higher scale of pay/upgradation/stepping up of salary sans prerequisite qualification for the grant of the same. This Court after considering the aims and objects of the office order dated 23.04.1990 issued by the PSEB, and also the entire scheme of time bound benefit of promotional/devised promotional scale as envisaged in the said office order, observed as under:
"25. The critical examination of the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court completely defeats primary purpose of the 1990 Order and provisions applicable to the employees of the Board. No doubt, it is true that the 1990 Order was issued only with an intention to remove the stagnation but this would not give blanket or absolute right to any employee to be entitled to higher pay scale even if he does not fulfil prerequisite qualifications for holding the higher post.
In other words, if he possesses the required qualifications but is unable to get the higher post on account of non-availability of such post, then only he can be categorised as suffering from stagnation as per Order of 23-4-1990.
If the interpretation of the High Court to the 1990 Order is to be implemented, then it would lead to unsustainable consequences. It would then mean that every Assistant Engineer irrespective of his conduct, qualifications, performance or behaviour would become entitled to the higher scale on completion of particular length of service. If that be so, then even those employees with poor service record and doubtful integrity would also become entitled to claim higher scale merely because they had completed a particular length of service. If such an interpretation is to be given to the 1990 Order, then it would not only be improper but would also be against public policy and interest of the Board. It is too well settled that a statute or any enacting provision must be so construed as to make it effective and operative. Any such 22 OA 1246 to 1255/2017 construction which reduces the statute to a futility has to be avoided."
18. In view of the above, it was made clear by this court that an employee could be said to be suffering from stagnation as per the office order dated 23.04.1990 only if he possessed the requisite qualification for the next higher post and was unable to get the higher post on account of non availability of such post.
19. In case of Union of India and Ors. vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair (2020) 5 SCC 421, while considering the object behind the MACP Scheme which provided relief against the stagnation, this Court observed as under: -
"31. The object behind the MACP Scheme is to provide relief against the stagnation. If the arguments of the respondents are to be accepted, they would be entitled to be paid in accordance with the grade pay offered to a promotee; but yet not assume the responsibilities of a promotee. As submitted on behalf of Union of India, if the employees are entitled to enjoy grade pay in the next promotional hierarchy, without the commensurate responsibilities as a matter of routine, it would have an adverse impact on the efficiency of administration."
20. Thus, the claim of the respondents based on the office order dated 23.04.1990, for getting the pay scale of the next higher post of Assistant Engineer i.e. Rs. 2200-4250 on the completion of 9 years of their service and the pay scale of another next higher post of the Executive Engineer i.e. Rs. 3000-5600 on the completion of 16 years of their service, without assuming the responsibilities of the said promotional posts, was thoroughly misconceived. What they were entitled to, as per the scheme to alleviate the stagnation as contained in the office order dated 23.04.1990,was the time bound promotional/devised promotional scale as indicated in the Schedule drawn up by the Board. The said Schedule had specified the first time bound scale to be allowed after 9 years of service as Rs. 1800-3500, and the second time bound scale to 23 OA 1246 to 1255/2017 be allowed after 16 years of service as 2200- 4250 for the post of Junior Engineer Grade-II (Civil), subject to the pre-conditions mentioned therein. The same having already been granted to the respondents, the pay scales as claimed by the respondents in the writ petition could not have been granted by the High Court." 6.3 Now, it is settled preposition that, ACP/MACP is NOT AUTOMATIC. The Hon'ble Apex Court again reiterated in UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VERSUS EX. HC/GD VIRENDER SINGH(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 16442 OF 2021), decided on 22.08.2022, as under :-
"In a nutshell, it can be stated that the MACP Scheme, like the ACP Scheme, is an incentive scheme devised with the object of ensuring that the employees who have stagnated for lack of adequate promotional avenues are given benefit in the form of financial upgradation. The financial upgradation is personal, does not amount to regular or actual functional promotion, and does not require creation of a new post. It has no relevance to the seniority position and principles of (2020) 5 SCC 421 For short, the 'ACP Scheme' reservation are not applicable. Financial upgradation is granted to only those employees who have not received actual or functional promotion even after completion of the requisite service period, though otherwise, they fulfil the prescribed conditions for promotion. Having said so, the ACP Scheme and the MACP Scheme differ significantly. Under the ACP Scheme, a government servant is entitled to financial upgradation on completion of 12 and 24 years of her/his regular service, to the pay scale of the next promotional post in the hierarchy. Under the MACP Scheme, an employee is entitled to three financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service to the next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the pay bands and grade pay as given in Section 1, Part A of the First Schedule of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. The difference between the two Schemes, and in the form of financial upgradation, has been lucidly explained by this Court in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra) by observing that the 24 OA 1246 to 1255/2017 MACP Scheme has been implemented after due deliberation and on consideration of the recommendations made by the Sixth Central Pay Commission to bring systematic changes in the erstwhile ACP For upgradation under the MACP Scheme, the benchmark of 'good' and 'very good' is applicable till the grade pay of Rs.6600/- in pay band 3 and for grade pay of Rs.7600/- and above, respectively. Scheme so that all employees, irrespective of the existing hierarchical structure in their organisations/cadres, get identical financial benefit of the next immediate grade pay instead of the pay/grade pay applicable to the next promotional post. The MACP Scheme puts an end and rectifies the problem arising from interdepartmental disparities in re the pay scales of the next promotional post.
The objective of the change is analysed and decoded in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra), in the following words:
"29...Under the MACP Scheme, financial upgradations are granted at three regular intervals on completion of 10-20-30 years of service without promotion. Hence, it is also intended to ensure that the employees are adequately incentivised to work efficiently despite not getting promotion for want of promotional avenue. The change in policy brought about by supersession of the ACP Scheme with the MACP Scheme is after well deliberated and well-documented recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission. Considering the various issues in the implementation of the ACP Scheme, the Pay Commission expressed its views "the only other way is to bring systematic changes in the existing Scheme of ACP so that all the employees irrespective of the existing hierarchy structure in their organisations/cadres, get some benefit under it". The Commission therefore, recommended that the existing scheme of ACP be continued with the modifications indicated thereon in the report that the financial upgradation has to be in the next immediate grade pay. One of the reasons for the expert body recommending the MACP Scheme was that there were interdepartmental disparities where several departments had 25 OA 1246 to 1255/2017 varying promotional hierarchies. As a result, the working of ACP Scheme under which an employee who stagnated for 12 years, was entitled to pay in the pay scale of the next promotional post, led to interdepartmental anomalies. The Pay Commission therefore, recommended MACP Scheme with a view to putting an end to the problem ensuing from interdepartmental disparities.
30. ...By perusal of the MACP Scheme extracted earlier, it is seen that the words used in the Scheme are "placement in the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands". The term "grade pay in the next promotional post" is conspicuously absent in the entire body of the MACP Scheme. The argument of the respondents that the benefit of MACP Scheme is referable to the promotional post, is dehors the MACP Scheme and cannot be accepted. Though ACP and MACP Schemes are intended to provide relief against stagnation, both the schemes have different features. Pay scales under the Sixth Pay Commission and the MACP Scheme are stated to be more beneficial since it extends to the employees with time intervals with higher pay bands and various facilities which were not available under the ACP Scheme including the three financial upgradations in shorter time span. In any event, MACP Scheme has not been challenged by the respondents. As rightly contended by the learned ASG, the respondents cannot be permitted to cherry-pick beneficial features from the erstwhile ACP Scheme and also take advantage of the beneficial features in the MACP Scheme.
The judgment in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra) defers to the Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations as an expert body that had threadbare examined all the issues, disparities and even representations by employees before making their proposal, which thereafter upon careful consideration was accepted by the government with modifications. The courts would not normally interfere with well 26 OA 1246 to 1255/2017 deliberated decisions by experts in the field, unless adoption is bad on account of statutory violation, the policy contravenes the overriding constitutional mandate of right to equality, is discriminatory, manifestly arbitrary or negates other fundamental rights. The Executive, by the Constitution, has been conferred the right to choice as it has a duty to discharge, and is responsible and accountable for their action. The court examines the validity challenge, albeit, while performing the constitutional duty and exercising the power of judicial review, does not substitute its views on the choice of policy on merits. In fiscal matters, including pay fixation and terms of service, several factors like prevailing financial position, capacity to bear the additional liability are relevant and, therefore, the courts do tread carefully as interference may have serious impact on the public exchequer and have grave financial implications.
In M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra), the argument to adopt "purposive interpretation" or to apply the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' for grant of financial upgradation to the pay in the next promotional post as under the ACP Scheme, viz. financial upgradation to the next grade pay in the hierarchical pay scale, was rejected as financial upgradation cannot be equated with promotion. On merits, it has been held that the financial upgradation envisaged as per the MACP Scheme is not a case of hostile discrimination. The MACP Scheme is not irrational, unjust and prejudicial to a section of the employees, but a well-considered decision which has taken all material and relevant factors into consideration. Prescription of pay scales and incentives are a matter of decision taken by the government which, when based upon the recommendation of an expert body like the Central Pay Commission, should carry weight and the courts should be reluctant to substitute the policy with their own views on what would be more equitable and just. It is to be noted that the MACP Scheme postulates grant of three financial upgradations after a period of 10, 20 and 30 years, whereas the ACP Scheme had postulated grant of only two financial upgradations after a period of 12 and 24 years of regular service. Thus, the claim for grant of financial upgradation in the grade 27 OA 1246 to 1255/2017 pay of the promotional hierarchy was rejected. Further, with effect from 1st September 2008, the ACP Scheme stands superseded by the MACP Scheme as a matter of government policy and hence, the employees, on and from the date of implementation of the MACP Scheme, cannot claim any benefit of the ACP Scheme. To hold so, this Court referred to the Joint Committee meetings held on 15th September 2010, 15th March 2011 and 27th July 2012, which were followed by a letter dated 4th November 2013. Minutes of these meetings reveal that some alternatives, including giving of individual option to choose between the ACP Scheme and MACP Scheme, were considered but not favoured as impracticable."
6.4 In factual matrix of the present case, it is not in dispute that a Time Bound Promotion Scheme (LA Scheme) already existed in the DOT regime. DOT had already decided the issue in the year 1999 (Order No.4- 1/99-PAT dated 24.11.1999) and had categorically ordered that in respect JTO and SDE of Telecom cadre which are covered by a Time Bound Promotion Scheme, wherein, the eligible officer is placed in the next higher grade after 12 years of service, the existing scheme shall continue and, therefore, the ACP shall not be made applicable. Under the LA Scheme, the applicants have availed the benefit with effect from 1990, much before the coming of the ACP Scheme in the year 1999. The applicants have gone for absorption in BSNL in the year 2000 and, therefore, are to be governed by the terms and conditions of the absorption and the policy framed in the BSNL. This being the undisputed position, the applicants, at a later stage, cannot seek implementation of ACP/MACP benefits in the light of the above settled legal position.
28 OA 1246 to 1255/2017
7. CONCLUSION In view of the detailed analysis above, both on facts and law governing the subject, we do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the applicants and, hence, the present OA(s) stand rejected. Pending application(s), if any, also stands rejected. No Costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
28.06.2024
MT