IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16784 of 2006(S)
1. N.V. DEVASSY, S/O. VAREED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SREERAJ
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :24/06/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.16784 OF 2006
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JUNE, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The applicant in O.A.No.218/2001 is the writ petitioner.
The respondents in that O.A. are the respondents herein.
Challenging Exhibit P14 order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench dismissing the said O.A., this writ
petition is filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are the following:
The petitioner joined the erstwhile Telecom Department as
Technician in 1988. As part of the restructuring of the
Department, the Technicians after giving training for them in the
latest technologies were being appointed as T.T.As.(Telecom
Technical Assistants).
3. The Telecom Consultancy India Ltd. is a Company
floated by the Telecom Department. The staff of the said
Company were being posted from the said Department after
inviting options for the same. Thus, when options were invited in
W.P.(C)No.16784/06 -2-
1996 the petitioner opted and his option was accepted. He was
relieved from the Telecom Department on 29.2.1996 and joined the
TCIL on 1.3.1996. He worked there upto 25.2.1999 and was
repatriated on 26.2.1999. He rejoined the Telecom Department on
3.3.1999. Upon rejoining the Department, he found that his juniors
were sent for training in October, 1996 and they were posted as T.T.A.
The petitioner was sent for training on 1.4.1999. He completed the
training on 11.6.1999. While awaiting posting as T.T.A., he filed
Exhibit P5 representation dated 9.7.1999 before the General Manager,
Kerala Telecom, claiming that his seniority may be restored and the
monetary loss may be cured and compensated on account of the delay
in posting as T.T.A. The Divisional Engineer replied to the said
representation by Exhibit P6 pointing out that the petitioner should
blame himself for having opted to go on deputation. He went there on
his own volition and therefore he is responsible for his grievances.
Thereupon, the petitioner filed Exhibit P7 comprehensive
representation highlighting his grievances and the grounds for
redressing the same before the Chief General Manager, Kerala
Telecom, the next higher authority. When the said representation was
pending, he filed the above O.A., before the CAT. The said O.A. was
W.P.(C)No.16784/06 -3-
dismissed on the ground of limitation, by Exhibit P8 order dated
9.4.2001. The said order was set aside by this Court by Exhibit P9
judgment in O.P.No.21066/01 filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal was
directed to examine his case on merits. Pursuant to the remand by
this Court, the matter was reconsidered by the CAT and by the present
impugned order, Exhibit P14 dated 1.3.2006, the O.A. was again
dismissed. The Tribunal rejected the contentions of the petitioner
holding that the petitioner went on his own volition on deputation and
therefore he should blame himself for not availing the opportunity to
go for training. It was also held that the O.A. is not maintainable for
not impleading the affected juniors. This writ petition is filed
challenging Exhibit P14 order.
4. According to the petitioner, his case is squarely covered by
Exhibit P15 judgment of the CAT, Ernakulam bench in
O.A.No.485/2000 dated 14.11.2002. The case of the second applicant
in that O.A. is identical to that of the petitioner. Though no one
affected was impleaded, relief was granted in that writ petition. The
petitioner also relied on paragraph 22 of that common judgment
wherein, the contention raised by the respondents against the second
applicant in O.A.No485/2000 that he went on deputation on his own
W.P.(C)No.16784/06 -4-
volition and therefore he should blame himself, was considered and
overruled. It was held that a deputationist continues in the parent
cadre and he will not lose promotion chances or seniority by virtue of
deputation. The petitioner submits, the said principle is squarely
applicable to his case also. In view of the non-impleadment of the
affected parties, the petitioner prays that the matter may be remitted
to the Chief General Manager, Kerala Telecom to consider Exhibit P7
with notice to the affected parties.
5. We heard the learned Standing Counsel for the BSNL. He
opposes the reliefs sought in the writ petition. He supports the order
of the CAT and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. As a result of supersession of the petitioner in the matter of
sending for training and consequential posting as T.T.A., serious
perjudice is caused to him. His entire career, is adversely affected.
Further, we notice that the view taken in paragraph 22 of Exhibit P15
judgment is the correct legal position. Therefore, the matter requires
reconsideration at the hands of the second respondent, in the light of
Exhibit P15 with notice to the affected juniors. The decision on Exhibit
P7 shall be taken as directed above within four months from the date
of production of a copy of this judgment. The notice to the affected
W.P.(C)No.16784/06 -5-
persons need not be personal notice to them, but, by circulation as in
the case of calling for option, deputation, etc. The proposal to consider
Exhibit P7 shall be circulated among his juniors so that any one who
wants to object can file his objection.
In the result, Exhibit P14 is quashed and the Writ Petition is
disposed of.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn