CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.198/2010
DATED THIS THE DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010
HON'BLE SHRI N.D.RAGAHVAN ….VICE CHAIRMAN
HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ….MEMBER(A)
S. Nagu Poojari,
S/o Channa Poojari,
Aged about 59 years,
Working as Deputy General Manager (F),
West Area BGTD, BSNL,
O/o the General Manager,
Vijayanagar, Bangalore – 560 040.
R/o No.1555, 4th Cross, Nagappa Block,
Bangalore – 560 021. ... Applicant's
(By Advocate Shri B. Venkateshan)
1. The Chief General Manager,
Telecom, Karnataka Circle,
No.1, Swamy Vivekananda Road,
Halasuru, Bangalore – 560 008.
2. The Principal General Manager,
Bangalore Telecom District,
CTO Complex, No.1, Cubbon Road,
Baangalore – 560 001.
3. The Managing Director cum Chairman,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Bharat Sanchar Bhavan,
H.C. Mathur Lane,
Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. ... Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Vishnu Bhat)
O R D E R
Hon'ble Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A) :
In this case, the applicant who was working as CAO was included in the list of officers to be given (ad-hoc) promotion as Dy. General Manager in the order of the
- 2 -
department of Telecommunications dated 28.4.2010 (Annexure-A/1) issued by New Delhi. Thereafter, his actual posting order was issued by the department posting him to Kolar as Dy. General Manager (ad-hoc) vide order dated 3.5.2010 (Annexure-A/2). Subsequently, he had obtained a stay for his transfer, from this Tribunal.
2. His main ground was that he was due to retire on 31.8.2011 which is only 16 months away from the date of his transfer order. On 28.9.2010, that is the date of hearing of this O.A., more months had also passed and he had continued as Dy. General Manager (ad-hoc) in Bangalore as per the stay granted by this Tribunal and now he has only 11 months of service left. Hence, the department considered his case and agreed to retain him at Bangalore vide order dated 16.9.2010. The learned counsel for the respondents placed the said order before this Bench and submitted that the OA has become infructuous. The learned counsel for the applicant is also in receipt of the modified order dated 16.09.2010 and agreed that the OA may be dismissed as infructuous.
3. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
(LEENA MEHENDALE) (N.D. RAGHAVAN)
MEMBER (A) VICE CHAIRMAN