Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Surekha Milind Shilotri vs M/O Defence on 13 March, 2020
o eS oe] pat oe oH ;
wd tena, i : :
"a s a ° :
* © : ' ' Z :
& a3 ry 2 sy te ae 3 : oy & Bm evs 2 ! : x fa reas ' Fd ared Sa 3 a. 8 ¢ @ 2 a: ae 8 ae a : : rc 8 "8 3 a we cat oY 2, Ng & ve o $4 13,8 bes ity 'yeah oy ea, s rac' > {G Le e 3 28 7 7 : 3 ¢ ' 8 i gs be ag « Go mG oe op G a © ' ef re oy Cy oh "a PB os uy e bea Fie i fe Song I se fey j a bet ae ia be nto ° 5 : :
ee ee o e be : : | :
me oe OR CS og G sts & a 2 2 foe fh oF & " a, 2 es 5S 7 : eh 6 =e 'B Be 3s . 8 AS : i? : bs ew a ms i at a Shee a te ¢ o wn em oe ; 5 Z fc 28 gh abo oO. whee ee tee a ts au G i = Pa fs] Oe 4 2 O Bay ae Ok, a ¢ oe | oO + Bim OF : ks og, BP OB Sot sh 'gs "os mo 3 te, of os Gt o 2 aye we Fe ia ¢ Ge 2 ot be 43 6% pe » oe By Pat gant : ee che GS She pk 2 ae re eS aS Be 3 2 : | og fe ue GD en er aL '. £4 BOD fe ¢ i ag B SS eG oy 3 are cad tye wat gg me fu Oh 3 Ow $ wo my 2 mt oy s : TE | aw oe t we: Gy be Ss eee "4 oo we: y 5B: : E : hg tet ot ewe pee res ' we ws as i r- % : E 2 : ' 2 ae oi 3 gt rp iy mm Eo "4 PR ns ms rea C4" " a ror ea O Bes geek tee % # es Ry £40 6 vey wed Chote ey fa G : ' : g | : 73 ot yl eal BBA oS a Be ES : J Fr 5 5 5 7 ae i ee Gs 3 io a oh G 1G 4 ke ce fas ne - 5 ae E a bn "a & oh ¢ Oe bape S 33 eds a rf wl id a} a : Sy 68 a z, ' A i :
: | 2 5 wn ee "oo , : oS (2, 4 Ss i peed me TA | Feng oF, : | : 5 55° $2 3 2 3 hee ee a an ) Lee oh : Ae 44 \ sot weg .
UF " Z i CORA, ieee ot Fon abi.
ty a w= Tak Nagar OW), Chembur ~Mumbal 400 6R9.
Dombivii (Ey, 421 201, Smt. Sandhya G. Joshi, Aged SS years Presently working as Telephone Supervisor , Group 'B' iNon- Gaz}, at Communication Nerwark Certre, INS Angre, Mumbai 406 033.
Rat B-24, Rajhans Society, Behind S.T. Workshop, Tharie.
Smt, Shahnaz Samsuddin Chougule, Aged 38 years, Presently working as Telephone Supeérviser , Group 'B' {Nore Gaz. Jat Communication Netwark Centre, INS ee Mumbai 400 6 Rfat 16G1/A, Sauda Heighes, 60, DroMesheshwari mbai 400 009.
Ro ad. Opp. Sandhurst Read Station, MiY Shri Vijay Shantaram Chavyre, Aged §1 years, fx-Télephone Supervisar , , Group 'B (Non- Gazi Communication Network Centre INS Angre, Mura bal - 400 O23 Rfat B-s05_ Desrai Co-op Hsg, society Ltd. , Opp. Bazar Peth Police Station, Doodh Naka, 'Kal fan (W), Dist. Thane ~ 491 30171, Smet. Anpa Sunil Katara: Aged 61 .years, Ex-Telephone Sunervisor , Group BR' (Non- Gaz} Communication Nernwork : Cent re, INS Angre, Mumba: 400 023 -Rfate-24, Nanddham Co-op: Hsg., Society, Bhausahed Para & Ma: re, Near Dahisar Bridge ; Dhisar (W), Mumbai ~ 400 068.
x Smt: Fatima Ravindra Suley, Aged 59 Years, Presentiy working as Telephone Suiperyi sor. Group 'B' (Non- Gas.) at Communicatic nn Network Centre, INS Angre. Mumbai 400 023. ;
Rfat Bigg No.44/1003, A Wing, WED needa. dtditie te ft Sime. Sugandha Satish Kamat, Aged : oO years, :
Presently working as Telephon e Supervisor , Group 'B' £ a (Non Gaz.) at Communication Network Céntre: INS gre; Mim bat ang O23.
aoe oy Bees sentl ye are up "B' iNon- Gaz fre, INS Angre, Mu :
Ryat 203, Ma BRZZauN SOD CENA AAR MEAD DEN ae ' Sy he wer > ze "st <3 ie rn S ser Dene NK Ps mt LA Ba i, Povey a oo Mumbai 400 023.
Rfat i/7, Nava Ganesh Krupa, Wadavli Senction, Ambarnath, [Nst. Thane.
Angre, Mu x id = ron 4 13 Syrnt. Jyotena Arun
2. Smt. Aruna Anil Shet i, Aged 56 years, Presently working as Telephe ome Supervisor , Group 'BY (Non- Gaz.) at Communi cation Network Centre, INS Angre, Mumbai 400 023 rm Nal Rfat Shiv Darshan D' 23, Ce niral Ratlway Co-op, Hsg. Society, MMM Road, Mulund (¥), Mumbai 8o.
ig. Smt. Jyoti Jayprakash Balekar, Aged 57 years, Presently working as Telephone Supe riser, nee the 'Ee ~ --
Angre, Mumbai 400 023.
Rfat43, Ranade Niwas, ist Floor, Pare} ¥ Hage, Parel, Murnbal 400 O19.
14. Smt. Vijaya Vipaykuy Presently working as° (Non Gael ee Comuruni Ang: , Mumbai 400 O2¢ Ri me New Akhand Jy > Society Ltd, Binek Neo ae No. 119, Jay erat 6 O55, iD. Smit. Uma Bharat Dubey, Aged 55 years Preseritly working as Telephone Supe rviser, Group RB' iNere Gazi aciNsS Trata, Civilian Sectian, Sir Pac chakanwala Read, Worli Sea Face, Murnbai 400 6386 Rat 29, Kailash Parvati, Gibery Hill Road. near Bhavans Co! iege, Andheri (W), Mumbai 40 10 OSS, . Smt. Karameseva Dalit Singh Dogra, Aged 54 years, ag es oi) we her Presently working as Telephone Supervisor, Grox up ED? {Nom Gag.) atINS Trata, Civillan Section, Sir Poch rakanwal ' sad, Worl Sea Faces, M umbai E400 O30, R/at D-33/2, Godrej Hil Side Colony, Vikhrol a |, Mumbai 400 089, a is, we SHE: Samidha Sudhir Bhosle, Aged 54 years, resentiy Working as Telephone Siz pervisor, Group 'B' fon- Gag) ) at Comme odore Bureau of Sailors, Sion Trombay Road, Mankhurd, Mumbai 400 O89.
BRfat Plat No. ae 8, See 8/5, Shivsrushti Coop. Hsg. Society, CBO Belapu in, New Mumbai- 400 614.
wu oF a at BID Miss Dh angauri Somabhai Patel, Aged 61. years, Ex. Telephone Supervisor , Group '8' (Non- Gaz.) Communicatio Nett work Centre, INS Angre, Mumbai 23 Rfat 36 Goa Street , Lal Bldg, 4 Floor, R.No.68, Fort, Mumbai 400 OGL.
Smit. Snehi al Sunil Rasal, Aged 56 years, Presently WOrkINg as" Telephone Supery isor , Group 'B iNori-- Gaz} at Cemrau unication Network Centre, INS ~Angre, Mumbai 400 023.
fat. BY 393, Dhuri Tower, Anand} N vagar, Vasai iW}, Fin. ~ #01 202.
ihan nm, Aged 59 years : rresen FOr ee iephone Supervisor , Group 'B' Jat Cone sunication Nesvork Centre, INS Angre. M umibal 400 023.
Ryat 32, Corner Vi lew, Gokhale Road (North] Dadar, Mumbai $00 028.
Rb hal Karmb! ble, Aged S? years, oSinks Shakuntala VA P i resently working as Telephone Supervisor , » Group BR' (Non> Gaz.) at Communication Netwarte Centre, INS Anegre, Mumbai 460 0223, R/at Fe 'Ol, Sudama Co-op. Hag. § SoM. Joshi Marg, Ralwa (Wi, Shri ¥ ittha! Marun Mamble, Ag :
Ex-Telephone Supervisor, Group B' [Non- Gaz.) Commodore | Bs rea of Sailors, Sion Trom Manknure, TY Tat = 400 088. R/fat 5Alo Mare.
ex & Cy ob o:
on "¢€ Sed a 4 % Smit. Sunita 05 naval Dandekar, : é Aged & i years, Ex-Telephone $ supervisor, Group ''B'(Non- Gaz.) at Conimunication Nene ork Centre > INS A Angre, Mumbai ~ 40023 and. residing at CHITANYA VIL ~» Row House Nata Near Gimaryne e Grampanchay o Dapel.
. Applicants in OA No.626/2016 fAdvecate Shri A.y. Buatkar i "
RSUS . att ays wa inte BORTIEEIRI ne GER 28K NNR AT te Ye PUT OETA IES EB NY CURR Ree
1. The Union of India, web the < Mirnstry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi LEO ao. .
2. The Chief of t he Naval Stall Integrated Headqus arters, Ministry o Director of Civ ian Personnel, Sena Bhavan, New Belhi-~ TiG O11.
3. The Flag Officer Commanding- in-Chief Headquarter s, Western Naval Commia and, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 G01.
. Kespondents in both the OAs.
fAdvocate Shri NEL Rajpurehit & Advocate Shri AM. Sethng)} ORDER {Oral} Per: RN. Singh, Member {3} Heard Shri Al. Bhatkar, learned counsel for the Applicant and Shri NK. Raipurohit, learned counsel and Shri ALM. Sethnia, learned counsel for the Respondents.
2 Ir the aforesaid OAs, the facts and issues are admittedly common. The prayers made by the applicants in both the OAs are also same. Therefore with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties both the OAs have been heard together and are being adjudicated ~ by the present common order.
3. Por convenience the facts are being taken from CGA No. 702 (2016. In the present OAs fled under Section 19 oof the Acimin istra ative Tribunals Act, 1985 the applicants have challenged the order dated 05.05.2011 by which the respondents have refused ta grant Second Time Bound ea "a ch is Sd Nos, PO220L 8 & 6162016 h Promotion to them. after campleton of 26 years of continuous service from the date of thelr initial appointment.
4, In the impugned order dated OS.OS.20L1. it is asserted by the respondents that an Appeal vide WP (Cj No.213 as/2007 has been filed by the respondents to challenge the order dated 10.10.2006 of Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in OA.No.232/2005 5 {itis informed by the learned counsels for the parties that the. correct number is OA No.23/ 2005]. tis further informed therein that the persons mamed in. the impugned order dated 05.05.2011 Le. a non-petitioners Telephone Staff are not ot entitied for the benefits.of Time Bound Promotion from the date of initial appointment and therefore the benefits cannot be extended te similarly placed employees tl finalization of appeal under reference.
5. In the aforesaid background, the applicants prayed on . + et for the following reliefs in both the OAs:
plecsed iG cal pe he records. and os procesdings pursuant fo. he issuavice of the ord ea S20)}) and after nd v vahdry of the Le Sane.2
au Tabunal wll be graciously £ ihe respondents fo treat the Aauing Pt oaprointed. on m fhe date af their inina 2 ' of grant ae cotien' firancial MARDER De Pradediaba ele EE te a ee eC eT ane yess np ecivtnce rr nashinn tie saaitstceroonegis ess:
reaeeee shee ee ROGER eo On ple i a 'further o ders as deemed Ar in the facts: a od cicumstanc eS a ee ae oti tiag: he io Sek Xe B Gost of this application be awarded to ~
6. The Drief facts, not in. dispute and leading to the 6 present OAs are that the applicants were initially 3 appointed from different dates as Telephone Operators in x Grade Hon casual basis, in the relevant Pay Scale for the aud nest.
3x ay v + ne applicants were endorsed by the = Employ ent Exc change and after due selection process they were appointed to the said post. The applicants x continued in the said post without break ta they were ct converted as regular employees. It is also added that while beime reguls Hieed to the said post na further selection procesa was resorted to. In this background, the applicants claim that they are entitled to reckon the services from their initial appointment as Telephone Operators, Grade {1 for Time Bound Promotion after campletion of 26 years.
a $ OS Nos. 782 ¥. Learned counsel for the applicant argues. that the respondents were duty bound to count the services of the applicants from the date of their initial engagement as Telephone Ciperator, Grade If for granting the Time Bound Promotion after 26 at their own. However, '-
fe when the respondents failed and neglected to do the same, Similarly placed persons approached Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal vide OA No.755/2000 which was "disposed of by the Tribunal vide order fjudgment dated . 20.09.2002 {Page no.231-239).and para 13. thereof reads as under:
ig. in fhe conspectus of the # ourewmestcnces - we alow the GA and ser aside the imeugred ~ Otier Annexure Al dated 30.05.8000 and. declare thar the applicant § are entitled to ACP Scheme on tke Basis of their egulurisation from ihe date lig > i of their inital appomtment fincluding tke Services rendered -- ar RL cash at basis) ° The ward 3 Me . po peg eorsequential henge} its OF the Scheme ir Sot = & zt Js : cw ne fermms of tus order, uithin three months from fhe de 'f Flow relies
8. Tt is further contended that the judgement dated 20.09.2002 under reference was implemented by the respondents in respect of the applicants there in the OA.
it as further added that when the said benefit was not accorded to the similarly placed persons, another OA No.23/2005 titled AN Indie Naval Clerks Association & nr. ¥s. Union af India & Ors. was fled before the
a) ®t .
Se Pe ie cg a :
G@ 6S 3g 6 2 ££ 4 F BS "iO wo ee BGS gs a at a tea Sea be q 3 eee a wa "¢ ae S 4 gs ceanuun 8 = # & B '" 4 at bt . 3 :
° a 2 @ Eee 8 es 38 AoW ae 9 et BOS Oe BY By oR ete ee 48 ve Sob oo % Cope Wich Ch sg RR Tee gS o # £ S ey pee B YO 6 Bo Ba SPER eRe rn a eK. Boe @ a OS F a ao w Bs Sg a BOR oe Cd yw Bye a a et ry Es a0 8 2 we Pv y S 8 og, S8esseyn 68 9 B tH - S50 B89 8, SESE S ey "oon y 5S EO RS a Ak mo S| Se + & aSkSee5 . £ @ tw gap & sg" 9g 8AAS 8 Be t ") move A WH * " . at bad gt foe oe we Le & o i, fs Se wee nb & a es SP . & . Sey Bx is Xp a So ge, By iw 2 Se py Has Bae o, om gy Ee un og & Sg ea oR . whe ag a : te . ert a2 ne
- hg S EPs 8S Es fg 2 & BQ . & mae BP 8h tot Fad o goog & eye SEER 8 4 6B «4 B 8 YB gee at SPER ly os o BES 2 bSS GW Wm & FH 8 ££" SG @ Me Gee Ob SE 2 7 ran a oS Se SiO wed m 3 et & rt we OS "3 O'R ER Sis x a 5, « wae NM i Doves ot ea" x fe gt oe 2 Bo oo ¢ g¥S8" S260 8 mw © BO we 'yg BO Bk EOS 8 eo 2 SRMORP eae «y 2 eo 2.5 © ogy (SB bs ' f ' ' wo ne ON moe a 3 « ' ny se BS " @ go BG L2eSkssse @ € & & £ 8 ES Begs Boas 2 2 6 8 Bee aeso 8 © 5 6 ENS 86 BePeee sat ' 4 m > < a. ; & whee Up ren oy ES eye at b bey i> wad Os op © SB Sue ipod * we a a sp "y a iL ey Fed mo ¢ AO 65 | Bak Con CB 8 BP oBe @ RE BS SP ow FB Be S fo fe PB Ee o we + wo gy ate OM US tg & ' 4) ' BES LSP EE OB w . ee i at aa Wed, tHe + is det ' 2 $ Wi doe tbe ope aa 2 - Gg Soe & PRS & Lt ie eS a & 6% GON we G26 5 8 e-
Gos 4 | OG a Seo we FR g os % Boy a eS eka, GBT 8 ee eo RE ge 2 a» G S ES BB oS wm oe 2 C cl Seg ' 6 i & E cA £2 8, 2 GS het 'te ts rh at @ 4 Pin o a @ aoe a ee @ ' me oe el Bg SS ¢ B@ FY m&Oe KM ERB se Boe Ke) oo wR Roger oe oy ic gs ve eR ° oes @ SO RW SOE wa & ay a rt 5 yo 1 RS re w f i a OD wehbe OY oo neo & o BEE a f : " ns Q a es wt PI aoa "oA vu wo ye e Co "a bs 4 e Ge a ~~ 7 hol red a > : ro a oo oe OSs Fons 4 he aig : "© id > big wy Eg @ § g @ ¢ gs 8 ot mo @€ 58 a 8 & 5 & ch ee) o a Ch hs Se Pak :
fs re t ¢ Be Li OT TL ATES LEELA SESE DSE VEN END OVID INDE Eg OO AE BOSONS 0 itd Nos. SO220) § & sl aeooyé YoRame to those Ly MAKE BBpror priate ing competent authority among the respondanis within a pend of these marnths from now are . such representation shall be considersd ane orders, issued on a case to ca 1S basis considering all relevant aspects i eieh man outer limit of three morins from the date o ope recent of each oF suck regresentation and a: eapy of this fudgmern, whtchaver is later.2
"
iS. We further clarify that the time bound consideration ordered hereby is regarding the oUSeSs of persons who fre as of now 'eligible: te claim tne ber afi of ACP in wiew af ie fact that the order d dated 30.8 BOO af th Fiag Officer Carma n cing t py 2 Chief Stands quashed by the Tribunal in O.4.Na 75S oF 2006, ffany person becames subsequen iy eligible, 2 uy De open tf. suck employee fo move the | competent UR, orney Re 'establishment within a mut prefershiy uathin three oy Feasonab months from the dete on w Huck suck eligibluy $s ond seek redressal in actordancs with lau. The writ petition ordered avcard cungty. *
10. Leamed counsel for the applicants submits that in.
pursuance cf the aforesaid order dated 17.01.2012 of the "Hon'ble High Court, the respondents. have taken a 8, conscious decision to collect the details of persons who x are sim Harly Rlaced, hawever, are neither the petilhioners ae in the aforesaid cases nor are the member of Naval (Clerks Association in order to have the approval of 'Ministry of Defence for. extending the benefit of fudgement ¥ of this Tribunal in the aforesaid OA No.75 99/2000 and such decision was communicated. ta all concerned vide Ctitamusication cated 26.04.2013 (Annex. A-7}, He has the communication dated also bronght to a4 Hema GE ome te ly QS.01. 2016 from the Integrated Headquarters Ministry of > Defence {Navy}, Directorate of Civilian Personnel, New 'Delhi whereby it is informed that the financial upgradation is made as per the DoP&T orders under ACP scheme and the benefit of casual service for the purpose of ACP/MACP is granted to the petitioners on the basis of merit of Court directives in each cases after approval of the competent authority and in this background all concerned have been requested to furnish the details of the employees who are appointed on casual basis and subsequentiv reguigrised in a consolid ated mariner in the '4 ermat prescribed there in the cammunicated dated OS.01.20186.
bi. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though in the impugned order dated 05.05.2011, the respondents have taken a stand that the benefits te all these who are similarly placed lke the applicants in OA No.755/2000 cannot be extended keeping in view the fact that the matter is pending eadjudiextion before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, however, the respondents have mot. re-visited the impugned order dated 09.05. 2011 in spite of a conscious decision of the x competent authority in communication dated 12.01-2007 atten (Annex. A-4}, 26.04.2013 {Annex.A-¥) and 05.01.2016 'Annex.A-8}, referred to above. He further adds that "
respondents have failed and neglested to revisit ther decisic on communicated in the impugned order dated 05.05.2011 even after the fact that the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has already decided the pending Writ vide order/Judgment dated 17.01.2012
2. Learned counsel for the applicant further argues that when similarly placed persons appreached this Tribunal © "vide various OAs including the OA No. S26/2009 in the case. of Shri Subhash V. Chari & Ors, Vs. Union of India & Ors., the same along with a batch of OAs was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order/judgment dated 02.12.2012 (Annex.A-15). While disposing of the said batch of OAs, this THbunal has considered the aforesaid communication dated 26.05.2013. Paras 10 & 11 of the aforesaid commen order/fudgment dated 02. 12.2013 of this Tribunal reads + AS UNGer:
ABSE persons She ere ers' before. the esvakulam :
x g x 3 see acainctitpctentlathennrn cf x
13. it is informed by the learned counsel for the applicants that the benefits as claimed by the applicants the present OAs have already been extended to the similarly placed persons in OA No.506/2009, ete and also in OA No.755/2000. He invites our attention to the communication dated 20.10.2014 (Annex.A-16) which clearly indicates that the directions of this Tribunal in comition order/judement dated 02.12.2013 in a batch of cases have already been given effect to by the va respondents. Subsequent thereto, another OA being OA No.Z83/2011 in the case of Dilip Sitaram Zad Vs. Union of India & Ors. was filed before this Tribunal by a Simuarly placed persons and the same was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order/mudgment dated 17.04.2015 Ba "#@G. in view of the above, we hold that the grounds raised by the applicant are similar to fhe group O4s discussed above and therefore.
he ig eliyible to be grarded the Anmancial benefits of second financial npgradation wth effect from 26.12.2002 when he completed 26 years of service counting "his outial ag, in tment as 28.13, EOE. ie res sponde fut pat a ks ey
2. y Paget ft) try ¥ Pye op .
lowed only fo this extent. ioe Be ; ; ny a ¥ weber as to costs."
jet be rm Ne phe, yp ye & a fp ln Fae, Uy.
Re Oh tren ay ty 1, ae 40, Cn, And directions of this Tribunal in the judgment dated 17.04.2015 has also been implemented as would be evident fram the communication dated 24.11 2015 (Annex. A-18), i4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that once the issue raised in the present OAs has already been adjudicated by the Ernakulam. Bench. of this Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and the same has been implemented by ihe' Vespindent S, there Was no reason for the res pondents not. to extend the benefits thereof to the present applicants also: He further adds that the respondents have themselves made a Seen that the benefits of the Judgment of this Tribunal.in DA No. f55/2000 are being extended to the similarly placed persons and keeping. in. view the et Statement on bshalf of the respondents before this Tribunal, this Bench of the Tribunal has disposed of a batch of OAs vide arder/ judgment dated 02.12.2613 and furthers another OA. being OA No.283/2011 vide order /judgment dated 17.04.2015 and directions in both the said judgments have already been given effect to by the respondénts. Learned counsel tor the applicants argues that the respondents being model employer are nol expected to compel each and every similarly placed persons t¢ the Tribunals/Courts for the benefits in Prise ec ey itne nes Sicelatl ee eae aol oe Sssearae® Lo asgiteee lenses decision had already been taken by the respondents to give effect to and therefore the impugned action of th respondents is in blatant violation of the powers vested with the respondents.
Shri NUK. Rajpurehit and Shri A.M. Sethna, vehemently oppose the submissions made on behalf of the applicants. They submit that the present QAs are hopelessly barred by limitation inasmuch as admit tedly these OAs have been filed in the year 2016 wherein the order dated 05.05.2011 has been challenged. They further add that the applicants are seeking directions to the respondents to count their services from the date ot their initial engagement for grant of benefits of T Time Bound Promotion after completion of 26 years and that +2 indicates that the applicants have filed the present OAs after considerable delay and laches.
iQ. In Rejoinder, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that though the claim of the applicants is of YTeclirring in nature and the OAs do not suffer from lumitation, delay or laches however as a matter of "bomen precaution the applicants have filed the aforesaid MAs seeking condonation of delay. He further argued that the applicants have been seeking the ee oy a es toe Cr a a <> ts ts ox Pent oH, Re as bing SD by o om im extension of beneht of the judgment and from the communications dated 26.04.2013 [Annex.A-7}. and 05.01.2016 {Annex.A-8}, referred to above, it is clearly evident that the respondents have been in the process of extending the benefits to the similarly placed persons and therefore the aforesaid OAs are well within the 2, imitation. He adds that otherwise also when the appheants are secking the extension of benefit of judgment and this Tribunal has considered the objection of the Hmitations while deciding the aforesaid OA fie No.283/2011 vide » ctesttudamnene dated 17.04.2015 (Annex.A-7}, the objections raised by the respondents with regard to the limitation are not sustainable in the eyes of law lv. We have perused the pleadings on record and we nave aiso considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties.
18. The facts stated by the applicants referred to herein above are mot disputed. The only issue which has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents on meric is that the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of } a e Kerala in orderfjudgment deted 17.01.2012 in WPIC Sot 4 No.21384/2017 is subject matter of challenge before the Honble Apex Court and therefore the present OAs are ve conmsitered the submissions Me mot misotetmabie- iWe By 4 AIRS ee abd eben Nett ot) Mating nnn te ta nab datninniie dot made on behalf of the parties. [ is not in dispute that even during the pendency of the chalteng ge against the rfpuderent of the Hon'ble High Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents themselves have taken a decision to grant the benefits to similarly placed persons vide cormmunicaton dated 26.04.2013 (Annes. A-7}] and Annex.A-&}. It is also not in Cm OF $ 2 ee 8 i oy) peed dispute that during the pendency of the sain appeal 'before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the resporidents have made a statement before this Tribunal that extension of benefits of judgment of this Tripunal in OA No.755/2000 » Z, are being extended to the similarly placed persons and es) after recording the same this Tribunal has disposed of a poh, batch of OAs vide sommon order/judgrment dated 02.12.2013 and the same have been implemented. 'dingly, we do not find any reason or justification < oy avaetiable te (the respondents not to exten id the simular benefits to the present applicants also when admittedly the applicants are also similarly placed.
"419, In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered wiew that MAs seeking condonation of delay also deserve to be allowed and the same are 20, tn view of the aforesaid facts, discussions and law, the present OAs are allowed. The respondents are directed to grant financial upgradarion/Time Bound Promotion after completion of 26 years by reckoning their services fromthe initial date of their engagement as v Telephone Operator, Grade NT under the respondents. The Applicants are also held to be entitled to consequential benefits, ei. The Respondents are directed to complete the aforesaid exercise as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three months.from the date of receipt of & certified copy of this order. However, in the facts and circumstances, mo order as ta casts.
IRN. Singh) (Dr. Bhagwan Sahai) Member {J} Member {A} $ awe