Allowed

Rakesh Kumar Busbal v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltdandors

Rajasthan HC16 Apr 2019CW/6554/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's claim for exemption from a fresh bond deposit. The court held that the circular extending benefits to internal officials also applied to the petitioner as an open market candidate, quashing the recovery order.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 31.03.2016 of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the recovery letter dated 28.04.2016 are set aside and quashed.

Rakesh Kumar Busbal Vs Bharat Sanchar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6554/2016

¶3

With

¶4

D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.5880/2016

¶5

Rakesh Kumar Busbal, aged 32 years, S/o Shri Kalyan Prasad, R/o III/169, Sanchar Vihar Colony, Malaviya Nagar, Jaipur AND presently working as Junior Telecom Officer (JTO), Lal Kothi Telephone Exchange under Principal General Manager, Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jaipur

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Corporate Office, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Jan Path, New Delhi – 110 001

¶9

Chief General Manager, Rajasthan Telecom Circle, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jaipur, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur – 302 001

¶10

Principal General Manager, Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jaipur, M.I. Road, Jaipur – 302 001

¶11

General Manager, Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jaipur, Sangrur, Punjab – 148 001

¶12

Accounts Officer (Establishment), Office of Principal General Manager, Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jaipur, M.I. Road, Jaipur 302 001

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Yadav for Mr. Mahendra Gaur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankit Sharma for Mr. Anand Sharma

¶15

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

Judgment

(2 of 5)

[CW-6554/2016]

Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq:

¶20

16/04/2019

¶21

This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Rakesh Kumar Busbal challenging the order dated 31.03.2016 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in Original Application No.291/00309/2015, by which the original application was dismissed. The petitioner also challenged the letter dated 28.04.2016 whereby he has been required to pay the recovery amount of Rs.72,420/- by 13.05.2016, which has been arrived at after adjustment of Rs.19,428/- already recovered from his salary.

¶22

In fact the petitioner had challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, the letter dated 27.01.2015 issued by the General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Telecom District, Sangrur, Punjab, by which he was required to deposit a sum of Rs.1,94,274/- on account of resignation from the post of Telecom Technical Assistant (for short, 'TTA') to join the cadre of Junior Telecom Officer (for short, 'JTO') after due selection while serving as TTA, as well as earlier letter dated 04.04.2009 showing Rs.91,848/- as recoverable amount under that head.

¶23

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for the posts of TTA and JTO with the BSNL by way of direct recruitment as open market candidate. He was selected and appointed on the post of TTA with effect from 23.08.2008 vide order dated 26.08.2008 issued by the respondent no.4. Soon thereafter, the petitioner was also provisionally selected on the post of JTO in Rajasthan Circle on the basis of open competitive examination for Direct Recruitment of Graduate Engineers held on 15.06.2008. Pursuant to his selection, the petitioner submitted his

¶24

(3 of 5)

¶25

[CW-6554/2016]

¶26

resignation from the post of TTA to the respondent no.4 vide letter dated 09.01.2009 stating that he has now been selected as JTO in BSNL and allotted Rajasthan Circle and his training was scheduled to commence with effect from 12.01.2009 at RTTC, Jaipur. With reference to the aforesaid resignation, the respondent no.4 vide letter dated 04.04.2009 informed that an amount of Rs.91,848/was to be recovered from the petitioner regarding payment of Bond amount on resignation from BSNL service and he was directed to deposit the same so that the resignation process may be completed. The aforesaid amount also included Rs.30,000/- as per clause no.6 of the bond agreement. The petitioner then submitted a representation on 12.05.2009 and on certain queries from the respondents vide letter dated 19.08.2014, he clarified the position vide letter Annexure A/10 to the original application. Even then the respondent vide letter dated 27.01.2015 required the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,94,274/- due against him as calculated upto 31.12.2014.

¶27

Mr. Vikram Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner should be treated as internal official/candidate with reference to clarifications made vide letter dated 3.06.2010, which was issued in supersession of letter dated 06.05.2009. The clarification letter dated 23.06.2010 made it clear that it is related to the subject of Extension of Benefits to the internal officials selected against DR-JTO quota, who applied through proper channel, and it sought to clarify issues regarding extension of benefits to the internal candidates (BSNL recruited or absorbed), who have been selected against DR-JTO quota, and have applied through proper channel in the competitive examination conducted by BSNL in the years 2001 onwards.

¶28

(4 of 5)

¶29

[CW-6554/2016]

¶30

Learned counsel therefore submitted that the petitioner should be given the benefit of the aforesaid letter/circular.

¶31

Mr. Ankit Sharma, appearing on behalf of Mr. Anand Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, opposed the writ petition.

¶32

The relevant extract, which is the provisions at Point No.2 of the letter dated 23.06.2010, of which the petitioner is claiming the benefit, and is relevant for the present controversy, reads thus:-

¶33

S.No. Issue Clarification/Decision 2. Exemption from filing Bond The internal officials appointed Agreement as they have already against DR(JTO) quota shall execute served for many years in a Bond for the balance period of BSNL/DoT and have executed a service service i.e. Five years less Bond in previous cadre period of Bond served in previous cadre, subject to the minimum of Three years. The amount of Bond shall be kept as for fresh DR JTO. The old Bond entered in the previous cadre shall be discharged after the signing of the Bond for DR JTO post. The benefit is also applicable to those internal officials who applied for DR JTO post before joining BSNL.

¶34

The aforesaid clarification granted exemption to those who have already served for many years in BSNL/DoT and have executed a Bond in previous cadre. The clarification provided that the internal officials appointed against DR (JTO) quota shall execute a Bond for the balance period of service, i.e., five years less period of Bond served in previous cadre, subject to the minimum of three years. The amount of Bond shall be kept as for fresh DR JTO. The old Bond entered in the previous cadre shall be discharged after the signing of the Bond for DR JTO post. The last line of the aforesaid clarification provides that this benefit is also applicable to those internal officials who applied for DR JTO post before joining BSNL, and therefore there is no reason why this

¶35

(5 of 5) [CW-6554/2016]

¶36

benefit would not be applied to the case of the petitioner because he had applied for the post of JTO as open market candidate before joining the BSNL and simultaneously applied for the post of TTA and therefore, in our view, the Tribunal was not justified in not extending the benefit of the aforesaid circular to the petitioner.

¶37

The writ petition is therefore allowed. The impugned order dated 31.03.2016 of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.291/00309/2015 is set aside and consequently the letter dated 28.04.2016 is also quashed.

¶38

This also disposes of the stay application.

¶39

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J

¶40

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),Acting CJ

¶41

//Jaiman//47

Rakesh Kumar Busbal v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltdandors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Busbal v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltdandors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Rajasthan Vs Surghan Singh S/O Shri Damla Ram Yadav

Suresh Bairwa S/O Shri Ram Dayal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ramraj Verma S/O Shri Ramdev Verma Vs State of Rajasthan

Divya Kajwadkar Daughter of Sh. Vijay Laxman Rao Kajwadkar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kripal Singh S/O Shri Chander Singh B/C Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan

Shree Pal Singh S/O Shri Umrav Singh B/C Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan