- (1.) The short but core point for consideration by this Court in this appeal is- (a) when admittedly the appellant had been paid the salary of Technical Assistant till the last day; (b) when he had been signing the attendance register only as Technical Assistant which was authenticated by two Gazetted Officers including the Deputy Manager of the respondent-organization; (c) When the appellant had never worked as Key Board Operator on regular basis; (d) When at the time of exercising his option to function as Key Board Operator, the appellant clearly spelt out that he reserves his right to revert back as Technical Assistant in accordance with the practice in vogue in respect of other supervisory posts; How far is the Central Administrative Tribunal right in holding that the respondents are right in their contention that the appellant was promoted as Key Board Operator and his pay as Key Board Operator would be drawn and paid to him in due course and he should superannuate on attaining his age of 58 years instead of 60 which is for Technical Assistant.
(2.) In other words, when an individual has not served in a particular post but had been serving in a lower post can the respondent superannuate the appellant on the basis of the post not held.
(3.) The short facts of the case are as follows : The appellant had been working as Technical Assistant since 1971 and the age of superannuation of Technical Assistant is 60 years. In late eighties, Department introduced Phototype setting Key Board Operator posts. The age of superannuation of Key Board Operator is 60 years, later on reduced to 58 years. In 1989 the appellant was promoted on ad hoc basis as Key Board Operator but was reverted as he did not qualify in the trade test in Hindi. Again, in 1993 after he qualified in the trade test, he was offered the post of Key Board Operator and the appellant had stated that he reserved his right to revert as Technical Assistant as such a reversion from supervisory grade to workmen grade was permissible in other trades.;