The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order fixing the petitioner's pay with retrospective effect. The Court found no justification to set aside the Tribunal's order relying on Supreme Court guidelines for deemed promotion dates.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.07.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.No.10160 of 2013
-vs-
1.S.Baranidharan
Write Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 2nd respondent Tribunal made in T.A.No.18 of 2010 (W.P.No.337 of 2005) dated 29.02.2012 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Udayakumar
For Respondents : Mr.P.Rajendran
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was delivered by P.T.ASHA,J.]
The above Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, dated 29.02.2012. The factual matrix in brief essential for a better understanding of the issue on hand is herein below narrated:
2.The 1st respondent who was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal had been appointed as Technician in the year 1987 and thereafter since the cadre of Techinician was declared as a wasting cadre they were absorbed into the restructured cadre of Telecom Technical Assistant (TTA). By a communication dated 15.12.1998, the Writ petitioner had informed that they intended to hold exams for the post of Junior Telecom
Officer (JTO) (15% quota) to fill up vacancies of the year 1995 to 1998. The above communication further stated that the examination was to be conducted on 15th and 16th of May 1999.
3.The communication further clarified that the vacancies for the year 1995 was to be filled up as per the Recruitment Rules, circulated vide letter dated 15.06.1990 and the vacancies for the years 1996 to 1998 would be filled up as per the Recruitment Rules notified in the letter dated 09.02.1966.
4.By reason of the said rules eligible TTAs applied for JTO (15% quota) for the year 1995-1998. The 1st respondent had attended the examination, but, however, his name was only considered for the vacancy pertaining to the recruitment year 1995 and not for the subsequent years on account of the fact that the 1st respondent was working as TTA when the examinations were held in 1999. A similarly placed candidate G.Selvaraj, who had scored lower marks had moved the Central Administrative Tribunal and obtained favourable orders. The respondent's representation to the Chief General Manager had no yielded results. The 1st respondent had filed W.P.No.30024 of 2002 for a Mandamus to extend the benefit granted to G.Selvaraj to him. This Court by its order was pleased to direct the Chief General Manager to consider the representation and pass orders thereon after hearing the 1st respondent in the light of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai in O.A.No.1293 of 2000.
5.Pursuant to the said directions the Writ petitioner had issued an order dated 21.01.2003, declaring that the 1st respondent had also qualified in the JTO competitive examination and he was ultimately promoted as JTO in a supernumerary post with effect from 21.07.2003. The other candidates who had passed the same examination was selected for vacancies for the year 1996 to 1997 and joined as JTO on 12.06.2000 and promoted on 21.07.2003. Since the 1st respondent was eligible for notional fixation of pay with effect from 12.06.2000 together with other monetary benefits, he made a representation praying for notional fixation of pay in the Post of Junior Telecom officer with effect from 12.06.2000.
6.The petitioner had taken a stand that the 1st respondent was qualified only pursuant to the orders in O.A.No.1293 of 2000 and the High Court had accomodated him against supernumerary post where financial commitment was involved and therefore he could not be considered for pay fixation notionally with retrospective effect.
7.The Tribunal below had allowed the application filed by the 1st respondent and had directed the petitioner herein to fix his pay in the post of Junior Telecom Officer with effect from 12.06.2000 and grant him annual increments on notional basis
with effect from 12.06.2000 with monetary benefits from the actual date of promotion. It is challenging this order that the appellant is before this Court.
Considering the above Judgement we do not find any justification in setting aside the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)
Sub Assistant Registrar kan
To
The Central Administrative Tribunal, City Civil Court Building, Chennai – 600 104.
W.P.No.10160 of 2013
PP(CO)
RRS(22/08/2019)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petitioner should be directed to set aside the Tribunal's order granting notional fixation of pay with retrospective effect.
Whether the petitioner can be accommodated in supernumerary posts without considering it for pay fixation notionally with retrospective effect given financial commitment.
Whether the guidelines allowing deemed date of promotion when delay is due to court proceedings apply to the petitioner.
Assistant General Manager (Admn), Office of the Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Chennai Telephones, Chennai
S.Baranidharan
Central Administrative Tribunal, City Civil Court Building, Chennai
K.K.Sasidharan
P.T.Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
