MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD Vs. S M LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No.5 who appears in person seeks to discharge his counsel. Consequently, Mr.Narendra Kumar Sharma is discharged as counsel for respondent No.5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4, 6 and 7, on instructions and respondent no.5 state that no reply to the application is to be filed on behalf of the respondents. This is an application by the petitioner to file annexure P-2, P-4 to P-9 along with the writ petition. The documents sought to be produced by the petitioner are relevant for the determination of controversies between the parties and the respondents have also not opposed the production of said documents. Though these documents ought to have been filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, however, for the reasons detailed in the application the petitioner is allowed to file these documents and the application is disposed of. W.P(C) No.4936/2010 1. The petitioner, MTNL has challenged the order dated 20th January, 2010 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in T.A No.220/2009 titled Sh.S.M.Lal and Ors v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd allowing the original application of the respondents and holding that the respondent be considered to be promoted to ITS Group A? service in senior time scale at the time of their absorption on 1st October, 2000 in MTNL and granting them all the consequential benefits.

(2.) THE respondents were aggrieved by their absorption in the services of the petitioner in the cadre of Telecom Engineer Service (TES) Grade B? by order dated 24th January, 2004 with effect from 1st October, 2000 though they had been working in senior time scale (STS) of the Indian Telecommunication service (ITS) as group A? officers since 1966 though on adhoc basis on account of regular DPC not conducted by the petitioner. Though their selection on adhoc basis was against the post and a detailed process of selection through DPC was followed and they had even been drawing the increment applicable to the post.

(3.) APPOINTMENT of the respondents to the post of Divisional Engineer in STS (Group A?) was on the basis of consideration and recommendation by a Departmental Promotion Committee which considered the common seniority and assessed their performance. Though UPSC was not consulted, however, the promotion was with the approval of the concerned Minister.