Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited approached the High Court via Writ Petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order concerning seniority maintenance and promotion benefits for Group-III employees. The Court dismissed the petition, finding it wholly without merit.
The writ petition is dismissed.
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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Date of Decision: May 5, 2010
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others
..Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate, C.G.S.C., for the petitioners.
M.M. KUMAR, J.
The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) along with its officers have filed the instant petition against the order dated 27.10.2009 (P-4), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), while allowing T.A. No. 83-CH-2009.
The basic issue raised before the Tribunal was whether the seniority of Group-III officers is maintained circle wise or on the basis of their posting in SSA. It was on the basis of the seniority that the benefit of promotion to Grade-IV pay scale was to be given to the
CWP No. 8104-CAT of 2010
2
eligible employees. The Tribunal has made reference to its earlier order passed in the case of Randhir Sinvh v. Union of India (O.A. No. 672-HR-2000, decided on 7.6.2002) and has held that seniority on the posting in new SSA would have some relevance if the seniority of the employees is maintained by considering the cadre SSA wise. The seniority has been maintained circle wise and, therefore, transfer from one SSA to another would be irrelevant. This precise question was decided by the Tribunal in its earlier judgment rendered in the case of Randhir Singh (supra) . Accordingly, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that promotion to Grade-IV pay scale to 10% of employees of the department be given on the basis of their seniority in the basic cadre. Moreover, in Randhir Singh’s case (supra) the Tribunal has taken the view that the seniority and time bound promotions under the Biennial Cadre Review Scheme (BCR Scheme) are two different concepts and the past service cannot be overlooked for computing one time bound promotion and Biennial Cadre Review. Accordingly, the Tribunal has directed reconsideration by the respondents-petitioners overruling the objection taken by them on the basis of the judgment rendered in the case of Randhi Singh (supra). The petitioners are required to reconsider the entire issue regarding eligibility and grant of financial up-gradation under BCR Scheme to the private respondents who had filed the Original Application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal further directed that if posts under 10% quota of BCR Scheme were available then the benefit be extended along with revised pensionary benefits within a period of two months.
CWP No. 8104-CAT of 2010
3
At the hearing we asked the learned counsel for the petitioners to apprise us the rules which provide for fixation of seniority of Grade-III employees by constituting separate cadre in every SSA as against the maintenance of seniority circle wise, which is the view expressed by the Tribunal. However, neither any rule has been shown to us nor the judgment rendered in Randhir Singh’s case (supra) has been distinguished. Therefore, we find that there is hardly any challenge to the findings recorded by the Tribunal and the directions are well based. The writ petition is wholly without merit and, is thus, liable to be dismissed.
As a sequel to the above discussion, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) May 5, 2010 JUDGE
Pkapoor
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the Tribunal regarding seniority and promotion criteria for Grade-III officers of BSNL.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Randhir Sinvh v. Union of IndiaReferred¶15
Randhir Sinvh v. Union of India (O.A. No. 672-HR-2000, decided on 7.6.2002)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Central Administrative Tribunal
M.M. KUMAR
JITENDRA CHAUHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
