CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE DAY OF JULY, 2011
HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE SHRI V. AJAY KUMAR ...MEMBER(J)
S/o Late B.Srinivasamurthy,
Aged about 71 years,
Draughtsman High Grade
(Grade-II), Department of
Government of India,
(retired from Services) &
R/a Door No.77/7, VI Main,
Malleswaram, BANGALORE-55. ....Petitioner
(By Advocate Shri M.S.Ananda Ramu)
1. The Union of India,
rep. By its Secretary,
Department of Telecommunications,
New Delhi – 11.
2. The Director General of Telecommunications,
New Delhi – 110 01`1.
3. The Chief General Manager,
Karnataka Telecom Circle,
No.1, Old Madras Road,
Ulsoor, BANGALORE-560 008.
4. The General Manager,
Bangalore Telecom District,
BANGALORE – 560 001.
5. The General Manager,
Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Tumkur Telecom District.,
(By Additional Central Government Standing Counsel Shri Prakash Shetty for Respondents-1&2 and Shri Vishnu Bhat for Respondents-3to5)
O R D E R
HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
This TA application filed on 8.6.2009 was earlier submitted to the High Court of Karnataka by way of WP No.15025/2004 from where it was disposed of on 11.3.2009, being concerned with the Department of Telecommunication and BSNL and BSNL coming under the purview of CAT w.e.f. 10.11.2008. The TA is therefore taken up under Section 19 of AT Act, 1985.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
a) The applicant was recruited in the Department of Telecommunications as a Draughtsman on 23.12.1957.
b) He was promoted as Draughtsman higher grade on 16.9.1963 in the scale of pay of Rs.330-560 (pre-revised).
c) By a separate decision the Government decided to revise the pay scale of Draughtsman higher grade working in CPWD to Rs.425-700.
d) By letter dated 13.3.1984 the Government decision was communicated to say that the pay of the Draughtsman (higher grade) for other departments such as in Telecom may also be upgraded, provided that they possessed a diploma/certificate for Draughtsman.
e) Accordingly in the Department of P&T the pay scale of such diploma/certificate holding Draughtsman higher grade was revised notionally w.e.f. 13.5.1982 but actually 1.11.1983.
f) Further in view of the C.A.T. Order dated 5.10.1989 in OA No.93-109/1989, this got modified as notionally w.e.f. 22.8.1973 and actually from 1.11.1983.
g) In the meantime on 3.5.1996 the Department of Telecommunications promulgated recruitment rules for Draughtsman higher grade as requiring Diploma/certificate from a recognised institution for qualifying to the pay scale of Rs.425-700.
h) The Draughtsman who had possessed only a matriculation qualification as per the earlier eligibility criteria were also to be placed in a pay scale of Rs.425-700 provided that they completed five years service in the scale of Rs.330-560 which was the earlier pay scale of Draughtsman higher grade.
3. As a result of all the above those Draughtsman who possessed only matriculation qualification but were promoted to higher grade of Rs.330-560 and had completed 5 years in that grade could also get the revised scale of Rs.425-700 but only w.e.f. 3.5.1986 i.e., the date of recruitment rules.
4. Thus the applicant was also held as eligible for the revised pay scale only w.e.f. 3.5.1986.
5. He therefore approached the CAT in OA No.433/1991 in which it was ordered on 6.7.1992 that the applicant should submit a comprehensive representation to the respondents supported by necessary documents particularly establishing that he had the necessary higher qualification and also directing the official respondents to revise his pay scale if it was found that he had the necessary clairifications.
6. In consequence he made a representation dated 24.7.1992 which was again turned down by the department for the reason that he had not produced any proof to show he possessed the requisite higher educational qualification for being eligible to the higher pay scale w.e.f., a dated 1.11.1983. Hence the applicant once again approached this Tribunal in OA No.650/1994, this was also rejected by order dated 31.3.1995 on the ground that he did not posses the requisite qualification.
7. It appears that after receiving the above said order dated 31.3.1995 the applicant seems to have approached the High Court of Karnataka only on 29.3.2004 by way of Writ Petition No,15025/2004. The same petition is being taken up as TA No.415/2009 before us. It is seen from this petition that while the applicant has mentioned the above facts at para-2 to 4 of the original petition, he has failed to explain why there was 9 years delay between the date of order of this Tribunal in OA No.650/1994 pronounced on 31.3.1995 and the date of his Writ petition namely 29.3.2004. It is also seen from para-5,6 & 7 from the petition that he has received several Government communications such as dated 14.2.1995 (Annexure 'C'), Order dated 23.8.1993 (Annexure 'D'), another memorandum dated 19.10.1994 (Annexure 'E') and another order dated 19.2.1997 (Annexure 'F') and a corrigendum dated 14.8.1996 (Annexure 'G'). Finally he has referred to a letter dated 25.4.2001 at (Annexure 'H') which is the impugned order which is by way of clarification in the process of introducing the grades and pay scales in comparison to the recruitment rules in CPWD. However, the applicant has not been able to explain exactly how on the basis of all these above mentioned communications he becomes entitled to his claim namely to fix his pay in the scale of pay of Rs.425-700 notionally w.e.f. 22.8.1973 and actually w.e.f. 1.11.1983. The order by which his pay has been actually fixed w.e.f. 3.5.1986 has been justified by the Department, this being the date of the revised recruitment rules and this has also been confirmed earlier by the judgement of this Tribunal in OA No.433/1991 and OA No.650/1994.
9. In view of the above we see no merit in the TA No.451/2009. It has already been decided by this Tribunal earlier that in view of the fact that his qualification at the time of recruitment was only matriculation and that he could not show that he possessed any higher qualification of diploma/certificate,
- 5 -
hence he is not entitled to an earlier date of pay fixation on 1.11.1983 in the revised pay scale. As per recruitment rules he has already got his pay fixation w.e.f. 3.5.1986.
10. The TA is dismissed with a token cost of Rs.1000/- on the applicant which cost shall be paid to the Advocates Welfare Fund, Bangalore within a month from the date of this order. TA is accordingly dismissed.
(V. AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)