BIMLA KAUSHIK Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR KHURSHID LAL BHAWAN NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the wife of Late Shri Ram Kumar Kaushik, former Telephone Operator Staff in the MTNL, for the following reliefs: to pass an order directing the respondents to consider and grant promotion to the husband of the applicant as Junior Telephone Operator (JTO) w.e.f 1.10.2002, i.e., the date juniors to him were promoted with all consequential benefits including arrears of difference of pay and allowances and consequently to pass an order directing the respondents to revise the pensionary benefits with all consequential benefits, including the arrears with interest. any other relief which the Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including the costs of litigation.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, as are relevant, are that Late Shri Ram Kumar Kaushik (husband of the applicant) joined as Wireman in the Department of Telecommunication on 11.09.1979, was promoted as Telephone Operator Staff on 28.11.1984 and thereafter he was absorbed in MTNL on 31.10.1998. It is stated that the husband of the applicant was implicated in a criminal case in FIR No.3/2000 dated 21.01.2000 of P.S. A.C.Branch, GNCT of Delhi under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Consequently he was placed under suspension vide order dated 02.02.2000 w.e.f. 21.01.2000 and was, thereafter, reinstated in service on 24.08.2000. The next promotional post for Telephone Operators Staff is Junior Telephone Operator (JTO). In the limited departmental competitive examination for promotion to the cadre of JTO (15% quota) held on 15th and 16th May, 1999, Ram Kumar Kaushik had appeared and was declared successful (in the additional results declared after according relaxed standards) vide letter dated 3.07.2003 (Annexure A2). It is stated that he was also deputed for JTO Induction -Switching Phase I and Phase II training w.e.f. 06.10.2003 to 21.02.2004 and from 22.03.2004 to 26.06.2004 and that he successfully completed the same on 26.06.2004 [which is evident from the copies at Annexure A5 and A6]. However, although promotions to the post of JTO were made, including promotions of some juniors of the applicant w.e.f. 1.10.2002, he was not promoted due to pendency of the criminal case against him. From the pleadings, it is clear that, for reasons best known to the respondents, no sealed cover proceedings were adopted in the case of Ram Kumar Kaushik while effecting promotions to the post of JTO. Ram Kumar Kaushik was acquitted in the said criminal case by the Special Judge (P.C.Act) -06, Delhi vide order dated 29.05.2009 (Annexure A7) as there was no valid sanction. As the said acquittal was on technical grounds, the respondents decided to initiate action for departmental proceedings against him for imposition of a major penalty, on 27.10.2009. However, the decision in this regard was only on file and no memo/chargesheet had been issued in the matter.Unfortunately, Ram Kumar Kaushik expired on 16.11.2009. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings contemplated against him were not initiated and, vide order dated 27.01.2010 (Annexure A8), the period of his suspension, viz., from 21.01.2000 to 23.08.2000 was treated as having been spent on duty. The applicant (widow of Late Ram Kumar Kaushik) served a legal notice on 26.07.2010 (Annexure A10) to the respondents for claiming promotion and consequential benefits in respect of her husband w.e.f. 1.10.2002. It is stated that no reply to the legal notice has been given by the respondents. However, in response to a letter dated 14.09.2010 (Annexure A9) seeking information under the RTI Act, the respondents informed the CO (Pension) HQ that although Late Ram Kumar Kaushik had completed the requisite JTO training, his case for promotion could not be processed further due to pendency of the criminal case against him. This has led to the applicant filing the present OA on 16.12.2010 for the reliefs mentioned in para 1 above.

(3.) The main grounds, on which the aforesaid relief(s) are sought, are as under: that the husband of the applicant had successfully cleared the departmental competitive examination for promotion to the post of JTO and had even been deputed for, and had completed, the requisite training for promotion to the post of JTO, and the sole reason for his not being promoted as JTO was the pendency of the criminal case against him in which he stands acquitted. Further, various persons junior to him have secured promotion as JTO. that since the husband of the applicant has been acquitted in the criminal case and no departmental proceedings had ever been initiated against him nor any chargsheet issued to him, therefore, he is eligible to be promoted w.e.f. 1.10.2002, the date his juniors were promoted to the post of JTO. that vide order dated 27.01.2010 (Annexure A8), the period of suspension w.e.f. 21.01.2000 to 23.08.2000 of the husband of the applicant has also been treated as having been spent on duty and he has been held to be entitled for full pay and allowances for this period and, therefore, there is no reason to deny the promotion to him w.e.f. the date his juniors were promoted. 3.1. In support of the reliefs claimed by the applicant, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the following two Judgments: CWP No.3988 of 1989 (O&M) dated 5.09.2011 in the case of Balwant Singh v. The New Delhi Assurance Company Limited and others of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh stated that the present case is squarely covered by this Judgement. Bank of India & Anr. V. Degala Suryanarayana, (1992) 2 SCSLJ 1 of the Honble Apex Court.