R NALLUSAMY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Central Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner herein is in challenge. While disposing of the original application, the tribunal relied on the order passed by it earlier in a batch of original applications.

(2.) The dispute here pertains to seniority and proper placement in the seniority list. The petitioner had challenged orders pertaining to his fixation at No.7 in the seniority list of Grade IV Officers and claimed that he being the seniormost was bound to be given the supervisory duties. He had also made a representation, which was rejected by the concerned authorities, requiring the petitioner to file the original application before the tribunal. Needless to mention that the tribunal has also confirmed the stand taken by the department. The basic question here in this case is whether the seniority of the petitioner was properly shown at Sl.No.7, below the six persons who were admittedly junior to him in Grade II and Grade III services.

(3.) The following facts will highlight the grievance and help understand the controversy. The petitioner joined as Telephone Operator in Grade I service on 24.8.1964. Then, as per the prevalent rules, while 2/3rd of such Grade I persons used to be promoted by seniority, 1/3rd could appear for the competitive examination and could get the promotion on the basis of their success in that examination. It is an admitted position that the petitioner appeared in that examination and succeeded. He was, therefore, promoted on 28.9.1977 as Grade II officer. The nomenclature of his post was Telephone Supervisor. It is also an admitted position that all the six persons shown above the petitioner vide order dated 9.11.1999, were not so promoted along with the petitioner and they remained to serve as Grade I officers. Afterwards, the petitioner on 24.12.1986 was promoted as Grade III officer on the basis of seniority. The nomenclature of his post was Senior Telephone Supervisor. After that, there was a Biennial Cadre Review, under which the petitioner was promoted as Grade IV officer in the post of Chief Telephone Supervisor on 5.5.1995. It is the petitioner's placement in the seniority of Chief Telephone Supervisors Grade IV, which is in question. This promotion was given with effect from 24.10.1990 in pursuance of the biennial cadre review. 3a. In fact, the Telecommunications Department had done an exercise of introducing one time bound promotion to all those persons who had suffered stagnation for 16 years. Such employees who were given that one time bound promotion were however necessarily to be shown as juniors to the persons who were promoted on the basis of merits. That is how the petitioner was senior in Grade II to the other persons who were not so promoted and were promoted with the aid of one time bound promotion scheme. The department then brought a scheme called Biennial Cadre Review scheme, under which the persons who had put in a total of 26 years of service were to be promoted on the basis of their length of service. This scheme was introduced on 24.10.1990. Initially, under this scheme those who had already been promoted to Grade III were protected, in the sense that, they were to be shown as seniors to the others who were promoted on the basis of Biennial Cadre Review scheme with effect from 1990. Under this scheme itself, 10% of Grade III officers were to be promoted to Grade IV and it is precisely because of this that the petitioner, who was working as Grade III officer was promoted to Grade IV. 3b. Some persons approached the Delhi Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal vide O.A.No.1455 of 1991. The Delhi Bench of the tribunal, however, held that while comparing the inter se seniority of these Grade IV officers, the basis which would be taken into consideration would be the seniority of such officers in the basic cadre of Grade I. This judgment was ultimately confirmed by the Supreme Court in 'UNION OF INDIA -VS- SMT.SANTOSH KAPOOR AND OTHERS" in CIVIL APPEAL NO.3201 OF 1993. Perhaps, taking that as a cue, the petitioner was shown junior to six other persons in the cadre of Grade IV officers because those six officers were senior to the petitioner in the basic cadre of Grade I. It only had happened that the petitioner, because of his merits, had passed the examination and was promoted to Grade II and it is an admitted position that thereafter also throughout, upto Grade III, he remained as Senior Officer as compared to these six officers, who were shown senior to him. The petitioner, therefore, contested this position by way of a representation, which however, came to be rejected by the department on 4.4.2000, where the department reiterated that as per the judgment of the Delhi Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was ultimately confirmed by the Supreme Court, the promotions would be governed on the basis of the seniority in the basic cadre, i.e., Grade I. The petitioner was hankering for the seniority for the simple reason that only the senior most officers were allowed to hold the supervisory duties. Since the petitioner claimed to be the senior most and since the supervisory duties were denied to him, the petitioner had made that representation. In effect, the department came to the conclusion that the petitioner was junior in Grade IV Post to those six persons, who were admittedly senior to the petitioner in their basic cadre though they remained in the basic cadre while the petitioner came to be promoted on the basis of his merits to Grade II and thereafter on the basis of seniority to Grade III, prior to all the six persons shown senior to him. Be that as it may. The tribunal has ultimately come to the conclusion that the decision taken by the department was correct and the seniority in the Grade IV posts would be governed by the seniority of the incumbents in the basic cadre i.e., Grade I.