The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the denial of the petitioner's claim for first and second financial upgradations and consequential benefits under BSNL policies, holding that existing adverse entries precluded the benefit.
The Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND
THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.13523 of 2014
ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to declare the order, dated 11.03.2013, in Original Application No.838 of 2010, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for 1st and 2nd financial upgradations due on 01.10.2004 and 11.10.2009 respectively.
2. Petitioner herein/applicant filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal to declare that he is eligible and entitled for 1st and 2nd financial upgradations due on 01.10.2004 and 11.10.2009 respectively and grant all consequential benefits of arrears of salary and seniority. The Tribunal, upon considering the material available on record, dismissed the Original Application.
3. Petitioner, who retired as Chief Accounts Officer, Office of the General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (B.S.N.L), Eluru Telecom District opted to BSNL in the year 2000 as it promised Time Bound assured promotions in a time frame without reference to the Confidential Reports. Accordingly, absorption orders were issued to the petitioner. Later, B.S.N.L. issued Office Order vide Lr.No.400/61/2004Pres-I, dated 19.01.2007, wherein the Time Bound promotions are equated with post based promotions and Confidential Reports are brought into play by laying certain norms and one of the norms is grading criteria as –Adverse, Average, Good, Very Good, Outstanding etc. The said order
deprived the spirit of time bound upgradation offered at the time of calling options and equated time bound upgradation with post based promotions. Petitioner was due to get his Time Bound promotion on 01.10.2004 without any reference to Confidential Reports, but his case was rejected by the respondents even though his juniors were given 1st upgradation on 01.10.2004 as he was having adverse entry i.e., ‘Satisfactory’. Petitioner gave a representation to the Chairman and Managing Director of B.S.N.L to give Time Bound promotion on 01.10.2004.
4. Admittedly, adverse entries have been communicated to the petitioner, but he has not given any explanation as to why the adverse entries have to be expunged from the files of Confidential Report. His only request is to give Time Bound promotion for which he is entitled to with effect from 01.10.2004. Office Memorandum, dated 18.01.2007, issued by B.S.N.L. prescribes certain norms for giving Time Bound Scale Upgradation and also post based promotion policy. Under the Time Bound Scale upgradation policy, the Confidential Reports of five years have been taken into consideration for assessing fitness of eligible Executives of various grades on the basis of fitness criteria and the relevant scale. As per criteria for giving grade from Senior Time Scale to Junior Administrative Grade, there should not be adverse entry and not more than two average entries in Annual Confidential Reports. Although upgradation of pay is normally provided for in Rules with regard to giving effect of such upgradation, sometimes the same is done by administrative orders.
5. Admittedly, there was an adverse entry against the petitioner at the relevant point of time. The clause, which was relied upon by the petitioner in Office Memorandum, dated 18.01.2007, has not been under challenge before the Tribunal. The adverse entries are communicated to the petitioner and no explanation was made as to why the adverse entries should be expunged in the Confidential Reports, the case of petitioner has to be considered as per the Office Memorandum. In the absence of any
factual foundation with regard to expunction of adverse remarks, the petitioner is not entitled to financial upgradation with effect from 01.10.2004. Precisely that is the reason why, the Tribunal found that adverse remark is staring at the petitioner for considering the first financial upgradation and so, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit under the scheme of Office Memorandum, dated 18.01.2007. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in passing the impugned order and that order needs no interference by this Court. Therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
_______________ JUSTICE ANIS JUNE 04, 2014 YVL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.13523 of 2014
DATED: 04.06.2014
YVL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to financial upgradation with effect from 01.10.2004 given the existence of an adverse entry in the Confidential Report.
Whether the Tribunal committed any illegality in dismissing the petitioner's application for upgradation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chief Accounts Officer
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
K.C. Bhanu
Anis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
