P K SOMASEKHARAN NAIR Vs. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Original Application has been filed by applicants, five in number, seeking to call for records leading to Annexure A-11 order dated 9.5.2000 and set aside the same to the extent it promoted the officials who got promoted to Telecom Engineering Services Group-B as per A8 overlooking the seniority of the applicants and to declare that the persons like respondents 5 to 7 who got promoted to Telecom Engineering Service Group-B on regular basis as per A8 memorandum dated 20.5.93 were not entitled to seniority and rank in TES Group-B on the basis of their promotion as per A1 which became infructuous on their declining promotion. They sought the following reliefs through this O.A.

(2.) Applicants as well as respondents 5 to 7 were promoted to officiate in Telecom Engineering Service Group-B against the upgraded posts in Group-B by A1 O.M. dated 16/19.11.90. All the applicants were posted under Madhya Pradesh Circle at different offices. Applicants 1, 3 to 5 carried out their transfers and joined the Madhya Pradesh Circle on promotion. Applicant No. 2 sought change of Circle and being reallotted joined the Karnataka Circle on 4.3.92. Respondents 3 to 5 and some others aggrieved by their transfer outside Kerala Circle on promotion to TES Group-B approached this Tribunal by filing O. A. 1058/90 and 56/91. By A6 letter dated 9.2.93 a revised seniority list of Telecom Engineering Group-B Officers along with Memorandum dated 9.2.93 was issued in which it had been stated that in the case of those persons who declined promotion and those who did not join their place of posting, their promotion to TES Group-B as per A1 became inchoate and ineffective and they did not become members of the TES Group-B cadre. According to the applicants they could not be assigned rank and seniority above them in A6 revised seniority list. The deemed dates of promotion stated in A6 would not be applicable to such of those Junior Telecom Officers. Respondents 5 to 7continued in the cadre of JTOs as could be seen from A7 dated 25.2.1993. JTOs like the 5th respondent who had declined promotion along with others were promoted alongwith others in the vacancies which arose in 1993 as per A-8 memo dated 20.5.93. The applicants were transferred back to Kerala Circle by order dated 13.5.93. They were posted to Tiruvalla SSA under the 1st respondent as per Memo dated 20.5.93. In Kerala Circle the officials who had refused promotion and had not joined the places of posting on regular promotion till 31.12.92 were not identified and separately shown in A-6. According to the applicants, such of those officers in Kerala Circle who had declined their promotion ordered as per Al and those officers who were subsequently promoted against vacancies that arose in 1993 as per A8 could claim seniority on the basis of their placement in A-6 and their seniority could be fixed only with respect to their date of joining TES Group-B pursuant to A8. Applicants 1 and 2 filed A-9 and A-10 representations both dated 19.1.95 pointing out the anomally in A6. According to them they having joined the respective places of posting were entitled to seniority and rank on the basis of the deemed dates assigned in A6 and persons like respondents 5 to 7 were not entitled to the deemed dates shown in A6 against their names as indicated in A6 itself. That apart A3 O.M. also provided that the officers who declined promotion would loss their seniority vis a vis those who accepted their promotion and joined their place of posting. When applicants found Respondents 5 to 7 along with 11 others were promoted to the cadre of Its group temporarily and were posted to officiate locally as Divisional Engineers by A-11 Memo dated 9.5.2000 overlooking the seniority of the applicants they filed this O.A. seeking the above reliefs.

(3.) SEPARATE reply statement was filed by the respondents 5 to 7 and respondents 8 to 12.