{"id":207751,"date":"2007-07-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007"},"modified":"2018-08-24T05:31:51","modified_gmt":"2018-08-24T00:01:51","slug":"the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007","title":{"rendered":"The Chief General Manager Telecom vs The C.A.T on 27 July, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
The Chief General Manager Telecom vs The C.A.T on 27 July, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP No. 2182 of 2001(S)\n\n\n\n1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. THE C.A.T\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.KESAVANKUTTY, SC, BSNL\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.HARILAL\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :27\/07\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n         K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ.\n\n        ===============================\n\n                   O.P. NOs. 2182 & 2983 OF 2001\n\n                  ======================\n\n                Dated this the 27th day of July, 2007\n\n\n                              J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
Antony Dominic, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      The   respondents   in   OA   Nos.   1340\/97   and   1423\/97   are   the<\/p>\n
petitioners   in   these   writ   petitions.     The   2nd  respondent   in   OP<\/p>\n
No.2182\/2001   filed   OA   1340\/97   praying   for   quashing     Annexure<\/p>\n
A12,   to   declare   that   he   was   entitled   to   have   the   period   of<\/p>\n
preappointment training treated as duty for increment in the post<\/p>\n
of   Junior   Telecom   Officer   and   to   direct   the   first   appellant   to<\/p>\n
regulate his increment in the Junior Telecom Officer cadre and to<\/p>\n
step   up   his   pay   on   par   with   the   pay   of   Smt.S.Sobha.     OA<\/p>\n
No.1423\/97 was filed by  the 2nd  respondent  in OP No.2983\/2001<\/p>\n
for identical reliefs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2.   In OA 1340\/1997 only the 2nd  relief was pressed by the<\/p>\n
applicant   and   the   Tribunal,   by   its   impugned   order   granted   that<\/p>\n
and following the said order, relief was granted to the applicant in<\/p>\n
OA 1423\/97 also.   Aggrieved by these orders, writ petitions have<\/p>\n
been filed seeking to quash the same.  Since the reliefs sought for<\/p>\n
OP Nos.2182 & 2983\/2001<\/p>\n
                                        : 2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
are identical in nature, we dispose of these writ petitions by this<\/p>\n
common judgment. For the purpose of disposal of these cases, we<\/p>\n
shall refer to the facts in OP 2182\/2001.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       3.     The   first   respondent   was   a   departmental   candidate<\/p>\n
promoted against the 1989 departmental quota vacancies to the<\/p>\n
post   of   Junior   Telecom   Officer.     Prior   to   his     promotion,   he   had<\/p>\n
successfully   completed   eight   months   pre   appointment   training<\/p>\n
and   was   thereafter  appointed   on   8\/10\/91.     His   pay   was   fixed   at<\/p>\n
Rs.1640\/- in the scale of 1640-2900 with the date of increment on<\/p>\n
1\/10\/92.   The pre-appointment period  of   training was not taken<\/p>\n
into account while fixing his pay in the promoted post or fixing his<\/p>\n
next increment date.   In  the aforesaid  circumstances, relying  on<\/p>\n
the order of the  Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 101\/92, he<\/p>\n
filed   the   application   before   the   Tribunal   praying   for   the   reliefs<\/p>\n
mentioned earlier.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       4.     The petitioners contended before the Tribunal that the<\/p>\n
pre-appointment training  undergone by  the  first  respondent  was<\/p>\n
not  counted,   as   that   period   was   already   treated   as   duty   for   the<\/p>\n
purpose of increment in respect of his lower post from which he<\/p>\n
was   promoted.     They   also   pleaded   that   the   order   in   OA   101\/92<\/p>\n
OP Nos.2182 & 2983\/2001<\/p>\n
                                          : 3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
was inapplicable to the first respondent.  However, relying on the<\/p>\n
order   in   OA   101\/92,     relief   No.2,   which   alone   was   pressed,   was<\/p>\n
granted   by   the   Tribunal.     It   is   challenging   that   order   of   the<\/p>\n
Tribunal, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.<\/p>\n
       5.     Coming   to   the   facts   of   OP   2983\/01   is   concerned,<\/p>\n
following   the     order   in   OA   1340\/97,   relief   was   granted   to   the<\/p>\n
applicant   therein   as   well.       The   counsel   for   the   writ   petitioner<\/p>\n
contended   that   in   so   far   as   second   prayer   sought   by   the   first<\/p>\n
respondents   in   these   two   original   petitions   are   concerned,   the<\/p>\n
order in OA 101\/92 was totally inapplicable and that their pay has<\/p>\n
been   correctly   fixed   on   their   promotion.     It   was   stated   that   this<\/p>\n
aspect   has   been   highlighted   in   the   reply   statement   filed   by   the<\/p>\n
petitioners   in   the   proceedings   before   the   Central   Administrative<\/p>\n
Tribunal and that has not been adverted to while disposing of the<\/p>\n
original applications.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       6.     Having   heard   the   submissions   at   the   bar,   we   are<\/p>\n
inclined   to   agree   with   the   counsel   for   the   writ   petitioners.     It   is<\/p>\n
seen that in the reply statement produced as Ext.P2, it has been<\/p>\n
stated   that   the   first   respondent   in   OP   2182\/01   was   a<\/p>\n
departmental candidate selected and appointed as Junior Telecom<\/p>\n
OP Nos.2182 & 2983\/2001<\/p>\n
                                        : 4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
Officer   w.e.f.   8\/10\/91   on   successful   completion   of   eight   months<\/p>\n
training   and   accordingly   his   pay   was   fixed   at   Rs.1640   with   the<\/p>\n
next   date   of   increment   on   1\/10\/92.     In   so   far   as   Smt.S.Sobha,<\/p>\n
whose case was  pointed out by the first respondent is concerned,<\/p>\n
it was stated that she was   a direct recruit and appointed as JTO<\/p>\n
w.e.f. 24\/12\/1990 after pre-appointment training and that her pay<\/p>\n
was   fixed   on   Rs.1640   on   24\/12\/1990.     According   to   the<\/p>\n
petitioners, she happened to  draw  her next increment on 1\/5\/91<\/p>\n
due to the addition of period of pre-appointment training counted<\/p>\n
for   the   purpose   of   drawing   increment   in   accordance   with   the<\/p>\n
Government of India Office Memorandum dated 22\/10\/90.  It was<\/p>\n
stated   that   in   so   far   as   the   first   respondent   is   concerned,   his<\/p>\n
period   of   training   was   treated   as   duty   for   the   purpose   of<\/p>\n
increment   in   respect   of   his   lower   post   from   which   he   was<\/p>\n
promoted   and   that   the   Government   order   itself   provided   for<\/p>\n
rectification of anomaly by stepping up of the pay, in case if the<\/p>\n
anomaly resulting in the departmental candidate drawing less pay<\/p>\n
scale due to the counting of the training period for direct recruits.<\/p>\n
According   to   the   respondents,   the   anomaly   was   not   as   a   result<\/p>\n
due   to   the   counting   of   training   period   but   due   to   the   earlier<\/p>\n
OP Nos.2182 & 2983\/2001<\/p>\n
                                       : 5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
training   and   appointment   of   Smt.Sobha   as   direct   recruit   from<\/p>\n
outside.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7.      On going through the order of the Tribunal, we notice<\/p>\n
that none of these aspects have been considered by the Tribunal.<\/p>\n
The respondents explained that the case of the first respondent is<\/p>\n
incomparable   with   that   of   Smt.Sobha     and   therefore   had   these<\/p>\n
aspects   been   taken   into   consideration   by   the   Tribunal,   the<\/p>\n
Tribunal   could   not   have   granted   the   second   relief   sought   for   by<\/p>\n
the applicants.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      For these reasons, we are not in a position to sustain Ext.P3<\/p>\n
order   in   OP   2182\/2001   and   hence   we   quash  the   same.    For   the<\/p>\n
same   reasons,   Ext.P3   order   in   OP   2983\/2001   will   also   stand<\/p>\n
quashed. The original petitions will stand allowed.<\/p>\n
                                         K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
Rp<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court The Chief General Manager Telecom vs The C.A.T on 27 July, 2007 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-207751","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Chief General Manager Telecom vs The C.A.T on 27 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Chief General Manager Telecom vs The C.A.T on 27 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-24T00:01:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Chief General Manager Telecom vs The C.A.T on 27 July, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-24T00:01:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007\"},\"wordCount\":909,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007\",\"name\":\"The Chief General Manager Telecom vs The C.A.T on 27 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-24T00:01:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Chief General Manager Telecom vs The C.A.T on 27 July, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Chief General Manager Telecom vs The C.A.T on 27 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Chief General Manager Telecom vs The C.A.T on 27 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-24T00:01:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Chief General Manager Telecom vs The C.A.T on 27 July, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-24T00:01:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007"},"wordCount":909,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007","name":"The Chief General Manager Telecom vs The C.A.T on 27 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-24T00:01:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-general-manager-telecom-vs-the-c-a-t-on-27-july-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Chief General Manager Telecom vs The C.A.T on 27 July, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207751","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=207751"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207751\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207751"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207751"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207751"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}