Sunday, October 16, 2011

OA NO.479/2009 -oral -- on 21-09-2011

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.479/2009

WEDNESDAY, DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011


HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE SHRI V.AJAY KUMAR ...MEMBER(J)


Renuka S.Adiga,
W/o Sri. A.N.Ramesh,
Aged about 47 years,
Working as Sub Divisional Engineer,
O/o Principal General Manager,
Bangalore Telecom District, CTO Complex,
No.1, Cubbon Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
Resident of No.2289, Shakara Nagar 'C' Block,
Bangalore – 560 092. ...Applicant

(By Advocate Shri B.Veerabhadra)

Vs.

1. The Principal General Manager,
Bangalore Telecom District,
CTO Complex, No.1, Cubbon Road,
Bangalore – 560 001.

2. The Area Manager,
North East,
Bangalore Telecom District,
No.5, Maruthi Complex,
Chairman Papaiah Reddy Layout,
9th 'B' Main, Banaswadi Main Road,
Bangalore – 560 043.

3. The General Manager (East),
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
No.794, 1st Cross, 12th Main,
HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar,
Bangalore – 560 008.

4. The Divisional Engineer (External),
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Sanjayanagar,
Bangalore – 560 094.

5. The Chief General Manager,
Telecom, Karnataka Circle,
No.1, Swamy Vivekananda Road,
Halasuru, Bangalore – 560 008.



- 2 -

6. The Managing Director cum Chairman,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Bharat Sanchar Bhavan,
H.C. Mathur Lane,
Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. ...Respondents

(By Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Shri M.V.Rao)


O R D E R (ORAL)

HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)

Heard both the Counsel. The two short points in this matter are:
a) Adverse entries in the CR were made for the year 2002-2003 and communicated on 2.5.2003 vide Annexure A7 and after receiving a representation dated 6.6.2003 remarks at Sl.No.1,2&3 were expunged and a portion of remark Sl.No.7 was also expunged. The remaining remarks at Sl.No.4,5&6 and part of Sl.No.7 have been retained. This decision has been communicated on 17.12.2003 for which one more representation was made on 3.3.2004 by the applicant. Thereafter, she has kept silent till the date of this OA, which is filed on 22.10.2009 where there is a delay of more than 4 1/2 years.

b) The second point is that in view of the adverse remarks the time bound promotion was not given earlier. It has been given only on 1.4.2008. This is as per the Scheme of ACP which states that ACP can be withheld if the ACR shows adverse entries. It is prayed that time bound promotion should be given from 1.1.2006.

2. We have heard the Counsel on both sides and gone through the records. It is seen that prior to communicating the adverse remarks vide Annexure A7 some warnings have been given to the applicant as seen at Annexure A1, A3, A4 and A5. Prima Facie it appears that the adverse
- 3 -
entries were not made without a reason.

3. However, we will limit to the question of delay. We find that the applicant has remained quiet for nearly 4 ½ years and never pursued her representation dated 3.3.2004. we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the authorities either in retaining some of the adverse entries or in rejecting the ACP Scheme at that point of time. We also find that w.e.f., subsequent years, presumably the performance improved and she has been given ACP. Thus we agree with the learned Counsel for the respondents that the matter deserves no merits.

4. Accordingly, MA for condonation of delay as well as the OA is dismissed.


(V.AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No comments:

Post a Comment