- (1.) Heard the counsel for the parties. Petitioner in this application has prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to consider his case for grant of time bound promotion in terms of the scheme and the rules of the BSNL by considering the fact that the petitioner had completed 40 years of service before his superannuation.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would explain by reference to the Office Memorandum No. 400 -61/2004.Pers.1/308 dated 18.1.2007 that the office memorandum lays down Rules regarding grant of time bound promotion/post based promotional policy for group B officers of the BSNL. Under the policy, the eligibility criteria has been elaborately stated in clause 3 which indicates that the first upgradation of the IDA Scale of the Executives will be due for consideration on completion of 4 years of service in the current IDA scale subject to the condition that the executives basic pay in the current IDA scale has crossed/touched the lowest of the higher IDA scale for which his/her upgradation is to be considered or he/she has completed six years of service in the current IDA scale, whichever is earlier. Similarly, for the subsequent upgradtion to the next higher IDA scale, eligibility was fixed as 5 years service in the current ID scale. The petitioner has completed requisite number of years of service in the lower scale and therefore the respondent authorities were under obligation under the policy and the Rules to refer the petitioners case along with other eligible officers to the screening committee. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the light of the policy decision, which directed for consideration of the case of eligible officers, petitioners case which ought to have been taken up on 1.10.2004, 1.10.2005 and 1.10.2006 should have been taken up and completed before 31.3.2007. Learned counsel adds that since the criteria as laid dwn in the aforesaid policy does not take into consideration any other criteria for grant of time bound promotion, the respondents could not have withheld the petitioners case by referring to the petitioners ACR which is irrelevant in the context of grant of upgradation on ID scale. Learned counsel adds further that by arbitrarily linking the petitioners claim for 1st upgration with his ACR of 2001, the respondents have illegally deprived the petitioner of the benefits of 1st upgradation. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the case was referred to DPC and since no meeting of the DPC could be held, therefore the petitioners case could not be considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the contrary, would contradict by stating that reference of the petitioners case to the DPC was not relevant for his upgradation and therefore the respondents cannot take the plea of DPC for denial of benefit of the upgradation to the petitioner.
(3.) CONSIDERING the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to implement the policy as laid down in the aforesaid office memorandum of the respondent BSNL dated 18.1.2007 and to consider the petitioners case in respect of his claim for grant of first upgradation in accordance with the criteria laid down in the aforesaid memorandum and to record their decision on the petitioners claim by recording a reasoned and speaking order and shall communicate the same effectively to the petitioner within two months from the date of this order. With the above observation, this application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondents.;