CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE
TRANSFERRED APPLICATION NO.397/2010
TUESDAY, DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011
HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE SHRI V. AJAY KUMAR ...MEMBER(J)
Sri D.Sangya Naik,
S/o Dhakya Naik,
Aged about 50 years,
Working as Hindi Translator Grade-II,
In the Office of the General Manager Telecom,
Mysore Telecom District,
Mysore – 570 012. ...Petitioner
(By Advocate Shri S.P.Kulkarni)
1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
By its Executive Director,
No.20, Sanchar Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2. The Chief General Manager Telecommunications,
No.1, Swamy Vivekananda Road,
Ulsoor, Bangalore – 560 008.
3. The General Manager Telecom,
Mysore Telecom District,
Mysore – 570 012. ...Respondents
(By Standing Counsel Shri Vishnu Bhat)
O R D E R (ORAL)
HON'BLE SMT.LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
Heard Shri Manjunath, learned proxy Counsel for Shri S.P.Kulkarni, learned Counsel for applicant and Shri Vishnu Bhat, learned Counsel for respondents. The short matter in this case arises from the fact that Shri D.Sangya Naik who was initially employed by BSNL as Telecom Operating Assistant (TOA) was given a chance in 1993 to appear for the competitive examination for the post of Hindi Translator Grade II and was appointed as such by order dated 27.7.1993 (Annexure D), which order clearly stated that this promotion is for 2 years from the date of appointment. However, rather than reverting the applicant immediately after completion of 2 years the department reverted him back as TOA only on 18.9.2001. This order was challenged in the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.12302/2002 in which the Hon'ble High Court had earlier granted interim stay against the reversion order and finally quashed the reversion order giving liberty to the respondent department to take appropriate action in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the petitioner. Accordingly, a notice was given as at Annexure M proposing his reversion back as TOA to which a detailed reply was submitted vide Annexure N. However, the reply was rejected and finally the BSNL has passed a detailed order as at Annexure P on 16.8.2008 confirming the reversion of the applicant back as TOA w.e.f. 18.8.1995. Annexure P was once again challenged before the High Court from where matter was transferred to this Tribunal.
2. During the hearing on the last occasion a question was asked to the learned Counsel for respondents as to whether the department was willing to give all the normal promotions to the applicant in that TOA grade. This question was relevant in view of the fact that it was the mistake of the department that the applicant had continued to work as Hindi Translator Grade II till 2001 and had missed the chance of working and being considered for other promotions during the period from 18.8.1995 to 18.9.2001. Towards this the learned Counsel for BSNL has today filed a memo confirming that the applicant is entitled to upgradation benefit in the cadre of TOA Grade I which was due. He further states that the department would be willing to give this benefit by issuing an order as early as possible. Accordingly, we are confirming the impugned order at Annexure P subject to the direction to the department that all the necessary promotional benefits as per the entitlement should be given to the applicant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We also make it clear that no recovery shall be made from the applicant up till today as the applicant has continued to work as Hindi Translator Grade II and has served the department in that capacity and has been paid the salary against the work discharged by the applicant.
OA is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
(V. AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)