LAWS(KER)-2019-11-118

ABDUL RASHEED.A.A. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On November 13, 2019
Abdul Rasheed.A.A. Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Conversion of a Government Department into a public sector undertaking, whether would disable the persons recruited prior to the actual date of conversion from being considered as Government employees for reason of their appointment being after the new undertaking came into existence; is the question arising in the above case.

(2.) The Tribunal before whom the petitioners had first agitated the cause found against them. It was held that the Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter for brevity 'BSNL') and Department of Telecom (hereinafter for brevity 'DoT') having interpreted the terms and conditions of creation of BSNL, absorption of staff etc there can be no reliance placed on the Presidential orders which conferred such status to Government employees, on the petitioners. The Tribunal found that though they were recruited during the threshold of the conversion, they cannot be treated as DoT employees. Their appointment on completion of formalities and training was made after BSNL had come into existence. The applicants were found to be liable to concede to the position taken by the BSNL, in the matter of their status as government employees; which stood dis-allowed.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri.M.R. Hariraj took us through the various documents which indicate that all of the applicants/petitioners were appointed under the compassionate scheme of appointment. They were issued with temporary appointment orders by DoT, subject only to their completion of training, for which they were deputed, also by DoT. While they were undergoing training, the conversion is said to have materialised on 01.10.2000. They completed the training and reported for duty with the new entity; the DoT having already been converted as BSNL. They were appointed under the BSNL just a few days after the crucial date of 01.10.2000. Only two of the petitioners were appointed after two months since their training commenced a little later. While they were so continuing, they were asked to exercise an option which is applicable to all the employees who were deputed from the DoT to the BSNL, as to whether they wish to continue in BSNl or seek repatriation back to DoT. All the petitioners exercised their option to continue in the BSNL based on which Presidential orders were issued allowing them to be continued in the BSNL. However, later these Presidential orders were interfered with by the Assistant General Manager of the BSNL which are produced as Annexure A9 and impugned in the original petition.