IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 2182 of 2001(S)
1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE C.A.T
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.KESAVANKUTTY, SC, BSNL
For Respondent :SRI.K.HARILAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :27/07/2007
O R D E R
K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ.
===============================
O.P. NOs. 2182 & 2983 OF 2001
======================
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Antony Dominic, J.
The respondents in OA Nos. 1340/97 and 1423/97 are the
petitioners in these writ petitions. The 2nd respondent in OP
No.2182/2001 filed OA 1340/97 praying for quashing Annexure
A12, to declare that he was entitled to have the period of
preappointment training treated as duty for increment in the post
of Junior Telecom Officer and to direct the first appellant to
regulate his increment in the Junior Telecom Officer cadre and to
step up his pay on par with the pay of Smt.S.Sobha. OA
No.1423/97 was filed by the 2nd respondent in OP No.2983/2001
for identical reliefs.
2. In OA 1340/1997 only the 2nd relief was pressed by the
applicant and the Tribunal, by its impugned order granted that
and following the said order, relief was granted to the applicant in
OA 1423/97 also. Aggrieved by these orders, writ petitions have
been filed seeking to quash the same. Since the reliefs sought for
OP Nos.2182 & 2983/2001
: 2 :
are identical in nature, we dispose of these writ petitions by this
common judgment. For the purpose of disposal of these cases, we
shall refer to the facts in OP 2182/2001.
3. The first respondent was a departmental candidate
promoted against the 1989 departmental quota vacancies to the
post of Junior Telecom Officer. Prior to his promotion, he had
successfully completed eight months pre appointment training
and was thereafter appointed on 8/10/91. His pay was fixed at
Rs.1640/- in the scale of 1640-2900 with the date of increment on
1/10/92. The pre-appointment period of training was not taken
into account while fixing his pay in the promoted post or fixing his
next increment date. In the aforesaid circumstances, relying on
the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 101/92, he
filed the application before the Tribunal praying for the reliefs
mentioned earlier.
4. The petitioners contended before the Tribunal that the
pre-appointment training undergone by the first respondent was
not counted, as that period was already treated as duty for the
purpose of increment in respect of his lower post from which he
was promoted. They also pleaded that the order in OA 101/92
OP Nos.2182 & 2983/2001
: 3 :
was inapplicable to the first respondent. However, relying on the
order in OA 101/92, relief No.2, which alone was pressed, was
granted by the Tribunal. It is challenging that order of the
Tribunal, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
5. Coming to the facts of OP 2983/01 is concerned,
following the order in OA 1340/97, relief was granted to the
applicant therein as well. The counsel for the writ petitioner
contended that in so far as second prayer sought by the first
respondents in these two original petitions are concerned, the
order in OA 101/92 was totally inapplicable and that their pay has
been correctly fixed on their promotion. It was stated that this
aspect has been highlighted in the reply statement filed by the
petitioners in the proceedings before the Central Administrative
Tribunal and that has not been adverted to while disposing of the
original applications.
6. Having heard the submissions at the bar, we are
inclined to agree with the counsel for the writ petitioners. It is
seen that in the reply statement produced as Ext.P2, it has been
stated that the first respondent in OP 2182/01 was a
departmental candidate selected and appointed as Junior Telecom
OP Nos.2182 & 2983/2001
: 4 :
Officer w.e.f. 8/10/91 on successful completion of eight months
training and accordingly his pay was fixed at Rs.1640 with the
next date of increment on 1/10/92. In so far as Smt.S.Sobha,
whose case was pointed out by the first respondent is concerned,
it was stated that she was a direct recruit and appointed as JTO
w.e.f. 24/12/1990 after pre-appointment training and that her pay
was fixed on Rs.1640 on 24/12/1990. According to the
petitioners, she happened to draw her next increment on 1/5/91
due to the addition of period of pre-appointment training counted
for the purpose of drawing increment in accordance with the
Government of India Office Memorandum dated 22/10/90. It was
stated that in so far as the first respondent is concerned, his
period of training was treated as duty for the purpose of
increment in respect of his lower post from which he was
promoted and that the Government order itself provided for
rectification of anomaly by stepping up of the pay, in case if the
anomaly resulting in the departmental candidate drawing less pay
scale due to the counting of the training period for direct recruits.
According to the respondents, the anomaly was not as a result
due to the counting of training period but due to the earlier
OP Nos.2182 & 2983/2001
: 5 :
training and appointment of Smt.Sobha as direct recruit from
outside.
7. On going through the order of the Tribunal, we notice
that none of these aspects have been considered by the Tribunal.
The respondents explained that the case of the first respondent is
incomparable with that of Smt.Sobha and therefore had these
aspects been taken into consideration by the Tribunal, the
Tribunal could not have granted the second relief sought for by
the applicants.
For these reasons, we are not in a position to sustain Ext.P3
order in OP 2182/2001 and hence we quash the same. For the
same reasons, Ext.P3 order in OP 2983/2001 will also stand
quashed. The original petitions will stand allowed.
K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
Rp