Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
P.J.Sangry vs Mr. Prem Chandra on 1 July, 2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Ernakulam Bench
CP(C) 10/11 in TA 79/08
Wednesday, this the 1st day of July, 2015
CORAM
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR.R.RAMANUJAM, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. P.J.Sangry
Staff No.06322
Retired D.G.M-Ernakulam SSA
32/2625-C, Srampickal, Nandanath Kochacko Road
Thammanam, Kochi 682 032
2. M.P.S.Nambeesan, Staff No.05658
Retired D.E., B.S.N.L.,
Anupama, Athanickal, Near Koya Road Junction
Calicut 673 005. Petitioners
(By Advocate: Mr. Shafik M.A.)
Versus
1. Mr. Prem Chandra
Chief Generl Manager
Office of the CGMT, BSNL, PMG Junction
Thiruvananthapuram-33
2. Mr. R.Chandrasekhar
Chairman, Telecom Commission & Secretary (IT)
Ministry of Communications
Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi.
3. Mr.R.K.Upadyay
Chairman cum Managing Director, BSNL
Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Johnson Gomez (R1 &3)
Mr.N.Anil Kumar, Sr.PCGC (R2)
The Contempt Petition (Civil) having been heard on 23 rd June, 2015,
this Tribunal delivered the following order on 1st July, 2015:
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr.R.Ramanujam, Administrative Member This Contempt Petition (Civil) arises out of order dated 23 rd July, 2009 in Transferred Application No.79/08 which was disposed of by this Tribunal in favour of the petitioners. This is the second round of contempt litigation. Earlier, CP(C) bearing the same number was disposed of/closed by order dated 19th July, 2011 recording substantial compliance in the matter. Initially only one respondent was impleaded. Subsequently, MA No.691/11 was moved for restoration of the closed CP(C) for the reason that the applicants' counsel was not heard and the parties who were to implement the order had not been impleaded in the CP(C). By order dated 3.11.2011, respondents 2 & 3 were allowed to be impleaded as necessary parties in the matter of implementation of the directions, and notices issued.
2. The operative portion of the Tribunal's order dated 23 rd July, 2009 reads as follows:-
'We have no hesitation that the applicants' case is identical to that of the other cases which were considered by the Writ Petitions and all these cases were identical with the case of Paramanand Lal and Brij Mohan and as such all the applicants are entitled to the benefits as given in order dated 09.11.1990 (Ext.P1) which had in fact been implemented but later on revised to the detriment of the applicants (Ext.P6). As such, Ext.P6, P12 and P13 are quashed and set aside. It is declared that the benefits available to the Writ Petitioners, A.Venkiteswaran and S. Vikraman Nair and petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3807/2005 (T.N.Peethambaran) should be equally available to the applicant and the seniority of the applicants should be accordingly restored and the benefit accrued thereof shall be paid to the applicants. Identical treatment as given in the case of T.N.Peethambaran, A, Venkiteswaran and S.Vikraman Nair shall be made available to the applicants also.'
3. From a perusal of the records, it is seen that an affidavit was filed as early as October, 2013 showing a comparative statement of the benefits granted to the petitioners and other officials. It is stated in the affidavit that the first petitioner got his E-5 scale of pay (DGM Grade) on 1.10.2004 and he was allowed to officiate as DGM with effect from 20.12.2004. The second petitioner could not reach the E-5 scale before his retirement. The first petitioner retired in May, 2005 and the second petitioner in December 2002.
4. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents dated 17 th March, 2014 wherein it has been stated as follows:-
These respondents have not committed any willful disobedience in the matter of complying with the directions of this Hon'ble Court.
The petitioners were given seniority and promotion vide order dated 16.3.2011 as per the directions of the Tribunal in Annexure A1 order.
Accordingly, both the petitioners were given benefits of promotion of DE grade on adhoc basis with effect from 14.9.2002 as was given to Sri A.Venkitachalam, TN Peethambaran & S. Vikraman Nair. However, in view of the fact that both the petitioners were given their promotion in DE grade on adhoc basis in the year 1997 on the basis of their seniority in the grade of TES Group-B assigned to them on the basis of qualifying year, and as there is no change in their seniority after implementation of this Hon'ble Tribunal's order dated 23.7.2009, the date of their promotion in the grade of DE on adhoc basis will remain in the year 1997 and not in 2002.
Consequent upon implementation of Amnnexure A1 order of this Hon'ble Tribunal, in the manner mentioned above, the office of the PGMT, BSNL Bhavan, Kochi has issued a pay fixation memo with respect to the first applicant dated 28.5.2011. Similar pay fixation order was issued by the PGMT, BSNL Calicut with respect to the second applicant.
The Assistant General Manager Personal-Legal has issued letter No.15- 18/2007-Pers (Legal) dated 22.11.2011 to the first respondent intimating the clarification issued by the Department of Telecom as per Annexure R7 that 'consequent upon restoration of date of promotion to 12/05/1977 from 11/05/1981 in respect of Sri P.J.Sangry and Sri M.P.S. Nambeesan in the grade of TES Group B in compliance of the Hon'ble CAT Ernakulam Bench order dated 23/7/2009 in TA No.79/2008 by BSNL/Union of India, no changes have occurred in their seniority. Both officers have got the promotion in DE Grade on adhoc basis in the year 1997 on the basis of their seniority in the grade of TES Group B assigned to them on the basis of qualifying year. As there is no change in their seniority after implementation of CAT order dated 23/07/2009, the date of their promotion in the grade of DE on adhoc basis will remain stand. Accordingly it was clarified that the date of promotion in the DE grade on adhoc basis in respect of Sri P.J. Sangry and Sri M.P.S. Nambeesan will remain in the year 1997 and not 2002.
The petitioners herein are not entitled for any further promotion on the basis of the Annexure A1 order of this Hon'ble Tribunal. In view of the fact that Annexure A1 order has been implemented in its letter and spirit, this contempt petition may be dismissed.
Similar affidavits had been filed earlier also on various dates.
5. The petitioners, however, contend that 'after this CP(C) was filed before this Hon'ble Court, the respondents have now re-fixed the years of recruitment of the petitioners as 1977, as has been done earlier. However, none of the next promotions granted to the juniors and which should have been given to these petitioners while they were in service is granted. As per the information received under RTI Act, one of the year 77 recruits, like the petitioners, one Sri N.P. Sethumadhavan, has retired from service as DGM. The service particulars and the promotions given to him, given to the petitioners as per RTI application is produced and marked as Annexure P-7. The petitioners are now reckoned as promoted as Sr.SDEs 12.5.1989 calculating 12 years from 1977. Thereafter the petitioners are entitled for officiating promotion at least with effect from the date of which the said Sethumadhavan was given i.e., with effect from 6.4.1992 and to regulate the subsequent promotions, of ad hoc DE, regular STS and JAG based on that. The respondents are still refusing to grant the same.' This the petitioners contend is non-compliance of the orders of the Tribunal that tantamounts to contempt of court.
6. Respondents, on the other hand, point out that 'the claims of the petitioners are unsustainable in a contempt proceedings. The question whether the individual pointed out by the petitioners, Mr.Sethumadhavan, is a junior to the petitioners and whether the promotions, if any, granted to him can be granted to the petitioners cannot be decided in these proceedings. More particularly because seniority and promotions were not directed to be granted with reference to the said individual, in Annexure A1 order. The claim of the petitioner that he should be given all the promotions that were given to Sri Sethumadhavan N.P. is not correct. Sri Sethumadahavan N.P. belongs to the recruitment year 1963 and finds a place in the seniority list No.1. His seniority number is 236. He passed the qualifying examination in the year 1973 and he was promoted to the cadre of TES Group-B in 1977. The first petitioner belongs to recruitment year 1966 and is included in seniority list No.2. His seniority number is 2533. He passed the qualifying examination in 1974 and got promoted to TES Group B in 1977. The benefit of further promotion to STS was to be governed by the revised seniority prepared as per the entry year, which is the recruitment year in the grade of JTO as circulated vide seniority list Nos. 1 to 5 in March 2001 and further updated on 15.11.2004 and 12.1.2005. Thus the claim of the petitioner who belongs to the recruitment year 1966 for benefits similar to Sri Sethumadhavan who belongs to the recruitment year 1963 cannot be acceded to. The benefit of seniority and promotion under Para 206 of P&T Manual and as laid down in Allahabad High Court Judgment in the case of Sri P.M.Lal & Sri Brij Mohan was for the post of TES Group B. The benefit of further promotion to STS was to be governed by the revised seniority prepared as per entry year i.e., recruitment year in the grade of JTO as circulated vide seniority list 1-5 in March 2001 and further updated on 15.11.2004 and 12.1.2005. In the above and similarly placed cases, the applicants were given the benefit of adhoc promotion to DE grade at par with S/Sri Belani, Biradar and Kulkarni, if it was favourable to them, in accordance with judgment dated 25.3.2008. The claim of the petitioner for allowing him benefit of promotion at par with the promotion of Sri Sethumadhavan is thus unwarranted. However, the promotion to DE grade already granted in 1997 will stand as per DOT letter No.15-19/2011-STGII dated 9.11.2011'.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents. The controversy regarding the dates on which further promotions were due would need to be examined in the light of the correct legal position as also the rights that have accrued to the petitioners. This issue does not appear to be simple. It has been brought to our notice that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4389/2010 has gone into the issue of conflicting judgments and directed the constitution of an expert committee to deal with the grievances of rival groups as also the problems encountered in giving effect to various orders of the Court. In the light of this, we are not inclined to adjudicate on the claim of the peetitioners as it should get duly addressed by the committee. In any case, we do not think that further consequential claims of the petitioners could be agitated in a contempt petition. We, therefore, dismiss this Contempt petition and discharge notices.
(R.Ramanujam) (N.K.Balakrishnan) Administrative Member Judicial Member aa.