The BSNL EU,TEPU and BSNL MS met GM Estbl for implementation of FR 22(1)(A)(1)today.........................................................
BSNL's orders withdrawing the facility of Outdoor Treatment without voucher is breach of agreement ?
BSNL has closed its eyes over extension of Pay Fixation for 78.2% IDA, as per Govt's Orders.
BSNL pay electricity charges not on commercial tariff but on Industrial Tariff
BSNL's expenditure on Power & Fuel was Rs.2030 Crores in 2009-2010
Outstanding dues as of 30.9.2010 to BSNL from Subscribers including Govt.Offices is Rs.5351.39 Crores
Dues outstanding to BSNL from 46 Private Telecom Companies Rs.1366.22 Crores
BSNL's ADC demand of Rs.200 Crores from Reliance is stayed by TDSAT
Huge drain of BSNL's revenue resources is from AMCs / Contracts
Leaving all the above in high and dry manner, BSNL Management has targeted on facilities extended to employees based on agreements.
Is the attempt is to motivate or to de-motivate the workforce?
2011/09/28
AIBSNLEA TO CMD REGARDING OUR REGULARISATION\SUPERNUMERARY
JTO(O) ASSOCIATION BSNL INDIA IS VERY MUCH THANKFULL TO SRI.PRAHALAD ROY,G.S,AIBSNLEA AND SRI R.VENKATRAMAN,NC MEMBER&PRESIDENT TEPU AND ALSO SRI SUBBURAMAN.NC MEMBER&GENERAL SECRETARY TEPU FOR THEIR COOPERATION GIVEN TO US.I AM HERE REPRODUCING THE LETTER GIVEN BY SRI.PRAHLADRAI,GS AIBSNLEA TO MANAGEMENT FOR YOUR INFORMATION
-------------------------------------------------------------
To
Shri R K Upadhyaya,
The Chairman Cum Managing Director
BSNL
New Delhi.
Sub:- Case of regularization of qualified and trained TTAs now officiating as JTOs.
Ref:- 1)No. AIBSNLEA/CHQ/CMD/2010dt.17-2-2010.
2) No. AIBSNLEA/CHQ/CMD/2010 dt 23-4-2010.
3) No. AIBSNLEA/CHQ/CMD/2010 dt 9-8-2010
4) No. AIBSNLEA/CHQ/CMD/2010 dt.25-5-2011.
In continuation of our letters cited above under reference, it is constraint to bring to your kind notice that the issue regularisation of qualified and trained TTAs now officiating as JTOs not been settled. The qualified and trained TTAs officiating as JTOs in various circles continuously for the past several years These officials stand qualified as JTOs, passing the Screening Test conducted in the year 1999/2000 under JTO Recruitment Rule 1996. No protection was given in the JTO Recruitment Rules-2001, to accommodate TTAs who have already qualified in accordance with the previous RR. A good number of officials qualified as per JTO RR –1996 were given the required pre-appointment training and they are now officiating in the cadre of JTO in various parts of the country for the past six or more years without getting regularized as JTOs,only because of the administrative lapses on the part of BSNL.
They are presently officiating as JTO since the year 2005 after completing the training to the post JTO. These officials are being denied the regular promotion for last 10 years. The total of such qualified officials were approximately 6000.Out of this,3500 were regularized by
diverting vacancies from unfilled DR quota initially and by creating equal number of supernumerary posts later, based on an order passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Chandigarh). Another 2500 are still in wait list. The officials are on wait list for last 10 years.The present situation and fate of these Officiating JTOs,consequent to the orders of Hon.
High Court of Punjab & Hariyana in CWP No.5608 / 2007 and the stand of BSNL management thereafter.(It is to be noted that, the court did not allow the petitioner’s prayer “ to quash the waiting list of 3338 candidates for promotion as JTOs against 35% quota prepared in pursuance of the screening test held on 23-4-2000.” The court also did not consider the petitioners second prayer for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the BSNL to hold the departmental Competitive examination for promotion as JTO afresh) .
But, the above said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to BSNL to “restore the posts already diverted from direct recruitment quota to 35% departmental quota, as
stated by BSNL in its written statement submitted in the court.”Pursuant to the court order, the management committee of BSNL Board immediately rediverted the 3500 JTO posts back to DR quota and ordered to stop further diversion. Also
ordered creation of 3500 supernumerary posts of JTOs to adjust those officials who have already been promoted, as a special measure. The fate of remaining 2500 officials who are
equally qualified and eligible for posting as JTOs , is not clarified or mentioned by the management committee of BSNL Board so far.Vide, item No.3- decision of the Management committee( No.3-9/2007-pers-IV dated 11-11-2008 of Corporate Office) , BSNL wants to ensure that the promotional aspects of those officials who are eligible for consideration under the Recruitment rules of JTOs-2001 are not diminished in any manner. The Company is very much concerned about this group (Petitioners of the said CWP). But the fate of those eligible for consideration under the Recruitment Rule-1996, is not discussed anywhere.We have apprehension that, the BSNL authorities could not properly contest the above Civil Writ Petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the true interest of the Company. A good number of TTAs were qualified in the screening test conducted in April 2000, under the JTO Recruitment Rule 1996. This was the first and only one such test conducted under JTO RR –1996. This is the only channel of promotion extended to TTAs under the 1996 RR. There exists a policy decision of the Management committee of BSNL Board held on 30-3-2001 for diverting sufficient posts of JTOs from 11326 numbers of unfilled DR quota prior to year 2000 to the 35% departmental quota for absorbing those who qualified as per 1996 RR. This was based on the settlement arrived at between the recognized trade unions and the company. It is an admitted fact that, the petitioners of the said CWP No.5608 / 2007 have no
entitlement for the diverted DR posts which remained unfilled between 1996 and 1999. It is also to be noted that, no time- frame was stipulated by any body to restore the diverted posts.
These facts were not properly brought to the notice of the Hon. High Court by the company and hence the Writ petition was disposed of with an order which only did harm to those qualified TTAs/ officiating JTOs waiting for regular JTO posting as per 1996 RR. Even the original petitioners are not benefited, apart from the fact that certain hurdles could be created unnecessarily.
In this context, we earnestly demanded that a detailed inquiry should be conducted to investigate whether any sort of collusion at any stage occurred in the matter of handling of this court case. We have reasons to believe that, an inert attitude/ colluding activities on the part of some higher level officers in BSNL might have resulted in the failure of BSNL ’s case in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Three writ petitions on the same matter (similar cases) with the same prayers, filed by staff in Kerala state, were dismissed by the Hon. High Court of Kerala. We also demand to bestow all efforts to give posting to all qualified candidates, the majority of whom are doing the job of JTOs in the officiating capacity for the last several years.
However, a communication has been issued from the corporate office by the AGM (Pers-IV) vide letter No.3-9/2007/Pers-IV(Pt) dated 26-3-2010, which states that, the case is linked with RA No.148/2009 in CWP No.5608/2007 in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the matter is sub-judice and no action can be taken in this regard.Immediately we informed BSNL that, the contents of the above letter issued by the AGM
(Pers-IV) was incorrect and misguiding with regard to the matter of one-time up-gradation of qualified TTAs as JTOs. No court of law has ever issued any order barring BSNL from upgradation of posts or amendment of RRs etc. The Suggestions put forward by this Association and the trade union, BSNLEU, in the matter of regularization, were not against standing orders of any of the court of law in the country and the question of sub-judice does not arise , as
nobody has challenged these suggestions in court of law. Once the matter is settled amicably,all the pending court cases will become in fructuous and will be withdrawn automatically.
If at all, any contempt of court petition remains pending in the court of law against CMD of BSNL in this matter, it is a result of colluding activities already done by certain
group of officers in his own office having vested interests for obvious reasons . This is a matter that needs investigation by a top / independent vigilance group and the culprits in side should be booked. If the officers concerned in the corporate office had handled the case properly and judiciously by projecting the true interest of the company without favoring a particular influenced group, the question of a contempt of court against CMD would not have arisen on this account.
Hence we demands in this matter as follows:-
1) Do the immediate needful to settle the matter amicably.
2) Now the contempt of court case pending in the High court of Hariyana, against BSNL, is unnecessarily got postponed and dragged like any thing by the BSNL itself in collusion with the vested interest groups (opposite party) only to delay and deny justice to the qualified and officiating JTOs. (We are sure that the BSNL management can very well close this case immediately, by properly presenting
it’s legally valid stand that, it has got all powers to amend RR or to create supernumerary posts or to upgrade any number of posts as per requirement. It appears that, instead of upholding its powers, the company shows a tendency to
yield unnecessarily before the illogical claims of a vested group as per a predesigned scenario prepared by somebody and thereby torpedo the legitimate and genuine demands raised by this association.).
3) Do away with the present inert attitude of the Company in the matter of regularization of qualified TTAs as JTOs. and complete the process in a time bound manner.
4) Convene a meeting of all concerned at appropriate level to arrive at a logical/ workable solution., either by amending the RR or by one time up-gradation of posts.
5) Do not permit anybody to manipulate things in favor of some vested interest groups.
6) Do not conduct any further promotion tests of any kind from Gr-C to JTO till all the qualified and trained group, officiating as JTOs for the past several years are
fully regularized.
7) The suggestion given by us is economically viable as the up-gradation does not involve additional expenditure.
We therefore request you to kindly intervene in the matter and protect the future of 2500 qualified and officiating JTOs who have already proved their competency.
Thanking you,
Yours Sincerely,
-sd-
(Prahlad Rai)
General Secretary
Copy to: The Director (HR), BSNL, New Delhi
-------------------------------------------------------------
To
Shri R K Upadhyaya,
The Chairman Cum Managing Director
BSNL
New Delhi.
Sub:- Case of regularization of qualified and trained TTAs now officiating as JTOs.
Ref:- 1)No. AIBSNLEA/CHQ/CMD/2010dt.17-2-2010.
2) No. AIBSNLEA/CHQ/CMD/2010 dt 23-4-2010.
3) No. AIBSNLEA/CHQ/CMD/2010 dt 9-8-2010
4) No. AIBSNLEA/CHQ/CMD/2010 dt.25-5-2011.
In continuation of our letters cited above under reference, it is constraint to bring to your kind notice that the issue regularisation of qualified and trained TTAs now officiating as JTOs not been settled. The qualified and trained TTAs officiating as JTOs in various circles continuously for the past several years These officials stand qualified as JTOs, passing the Screening Test conducted in the year 1999/2000 under JTO Recruitment Rule 1996. No protection was given in the JTO Recruitment Rules-2001, to accommodate TTAs who have already qualified in accordance with the previous RR. A good number of officials qualified as per JTO RR –1996 were given the required pre-appointment training and they are now officiating in the cadre of JTO in various parts of the country for the past six or more years without getting regularized as JTOs,only because of the administrative lapses on the part of BSNL.
They are presently officiating as JTO since the year 2005 after completing the training to the post JTO. These officials are being denied the regular promotion for last 10 years. The total of such qualified officials were approximately 6000.Out of this,3500 were regularized by
diverting vacancies from unfilled DR quota initially and by creating equal number of supernumerary posts later, based on an order passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Chandigarh). Another 2500 are still in wait list. The officials are on wait list for last 10 years.The present situation and fate of these Officiating JTOs,consequent to the orders of Hon.
High Court of Punjab & Hariyana in CWP No.5608 / 2007 and the stand of BSNL management thereafter.(It is to be noted that, the court did not allow the petitioner’s prayer “ to quash the waiting list of 3338 candidates for promotion as JTOs against 35% quota prepared in pursuance of the screening test held on 23-4-2000.” The court also did not consider the petitioners second prayer for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the BSNL to hold the departmental Competitive examination for promotion as JTO afresh) .
But, the above said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to BSNL to “restore the posts already diverted from direct recruitment quota to 35% departmental quota, as
stated by BSNL in its written statement submitted in the court.”Pursuant to the court order, the management committee of BSNL Board immediately rediverted the 3500 JTO posts back to DR quota and ordered to stop further diversion. Also
ordered creation of 3500 supernumerary posts of JTOs to adjust those officials who have already been promoted, as a special measure. The fate of remaining 2500 officials who are
equally qualified and eligible for posting as JTOs , is not clarified or mentioned by the management committee of BSNL Board so far.Vide, item No.3- decision of the Management committee( No.3-9/2007-pers-IV dated 11-11-2008 of Corporate Office) , BSNL wants to ensure that the promotional aspects of those officials who are eligible for consideration under the Recruitment rules of JTOs-2001 are not diminished in any manner. The Company is very much concerned about this group (Petitioners of the said CWP). But the fate of those eligible for consideration under the Recruitment Rule-1996, is not discussed anywhere.We have apprehension that, the BSNL authorities could not properly contest the above Civil Writ Petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the true interest of the Company. A good number of TTAs were qualified in the screening test conducted in April 2000, under the JTO Recruitment Rule 1996. This was the first and only one such test conducted under JTO RR –1996. This is the only channel of promotion extended to TTAs under the 1996 RR. There exists a policy decision of the Management committee of BSNL Board held on 30-3-2001 for diverting sufficient posts of JTOs from 11326 numbers of unfilled DR quota prior to year 2000 to the 35% departmental quota for absorbing those who qualified as per 1996 RR. This was based on the settlement arrived at between the recognized trade unions and the company. It is an admitted fact that, the petitioners of the said CWP No.5608 / 2007 have no
entitlement for the diverted DR posts which remained unfilled between 1996 and 1999. It is also to be noted that, no time- frame was stipulated by any body to restore the diverted posts.
These facts were not properly brought to the notice of the Hon. High Court by the company and hence the Writ petition was disposed of with an order which only did harm to those qualified TTAs/ officiating JTOs waiting for regular JTO posting as per 1996 RR. Even the original petitioners are not benefited, apart from the fact that certain hurdles could be created unnecessarily.
In this context, we earnestly demanded that a detailed inquiry should be conducted to investigate whether any sort of collusion at any stage occurred in the matter of handling of this court case. We have reasons to believe that, an inert attitude/ colluding activities on the part of some higher level officers in BSNL might have resulted in the failure of BSNL ’s case in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Three writ petitions on the same matter (similar cases) with the same prayers, filed by staff in Kerala state, were dismissed by the Hon. High Court of Kerala. We also demand to bestow all efforts to give posting to all qualified candidates, the majority of whom are doing the job of JTOs in the officiating capacity for the last several years.
However, a communication has been issued from the corporate office by the AGM (Pers-IV) vide letter No.3-9/2007/Pers-IV(Pt) dated 26-3-2010, which states that, the case is linked with RA No.148/2009 in CWP No.5608/2007 in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the matter is sub-judice and no action can be taken in this regard.Immediately we informed BSNL that, the contents of the above letter issued by the AGM
(Pers-IV) was incorrect and misguiding with regard to the matter of one-time up-gradation of qualified TTAs as JTOs. No court of law has ever issued any order barring BSNL from upgradation of posts or amendment of RRs etc. The Suggestions put forward by this Association and the trade union, BSNLEU, in the matter of regularization, were not against standing orders of any of the court of law in the country and the question of sub-judice does not arise , as
nobody has challenged these suggestions in court of law. Once the matter is settled amicably,all the pending court cases will become in fructuous and will be withdrawn automatically.
If at all, any contempt of court petition remains pending in the court of law against CMD of BSNL in this matter, it is a result of colluding activities already done by certain
group of officers in his own office having vested interests for obvious reasons . This is a matter that needs investigation by a top / independent vigilance group and the culprits in side should be booked. If the officers concerned in the corporate office had handled the case properly and judiciously by projecting the true interest of the company without favoring a particular influenced group, the question of a contempt of court against CMD would not have arisen on this account.
Hence we demands in this matter as follows:-
1) Do the immediate needful to settle the matter amicably.
2) Now the contempt of court case pending in the High court of Hariyana, against BSNL, is unnecessarily got postponed and dragged like any thing by the BSNL itself in collusion with the vested interest groups (opposite party) only to delay and deny justice to the qualified and officiating JTOs. (We are sure that the BSNL management can very well close this case immediately, by properly presenting
it’s legally valid stand that, it has got all powers to amend RR or to create supernumerary posts or to upgrade any number of posts as per requirement. It appears that, instead of upholding its powers, the company shows a tendency to
yield unnecessarily before the illogical claims of a vested group as per a predesigned scenario prepared by somebody and thereby torpedo the legitimate and genuine demands raised by this association.).
3) Do away with the present inert attitude of the Company in the matter of regularization of qualified TTAs as JTOs. and complete the process in a time bound manner.
4) Convene a meeting of all concerned at appropriate level to arrive at a logical/ workable solution., either by amending the RR or by one time up-gradation of posts.
5) Do not permit anybody to manipulate things in favor of some vested interest groups.
6) Do not conduct any further promotion tests of any kind from Gr-C to JTO till all the qualified and trained group, officiating as JTOs for the past several years are
fully regularized.
7) The suggestion given by us is economically viable as the up-gradation does not involve additional expenditure.
We therefore request you to kindly intervene in the matter and protect the future of 2500 qualified and officiating JTOs who have already proved their competency.
Thanking you,
Yours Sincerely,
-sd-
(Prahlad Rai)
General Secretary
Copy to: The Director (HR), BSNL, New Delhi
SNATTA LETTER TO BSNL
No. SNATTA/Departmental JTO Exam-2.
To
Shri A.K. Garg
Director (HR)
BSNL
Bharat Sanchar Bhavan
New Delhi
Reference: Corporate office letter no.5-4/2004/Pers.IV dated 13th May, 2004
& Minutes of the 25th National Council (Agenda point 9.7).
Subject: Cancellation of TTA to JTO officiating promotions and conduct of
JTO departmental exam, regarding.
Dear Sir
The TTA’s are given officiating promotions to JTO cadre as per the agreement
reached between the then recognized union NFTE and BSNL management
in the 5th National Council meeting. The eligibility of these TTAs have since
then been quashed by the Honurable High Court of Punjab and Haryana,
Chandigarh consequently BSNL board in its 104th meeting has cancelled
further diversion of JTO posts.
The continuance of officiating promotions to these TTAs is not correct as
the agreement reached in the 5th NC stands null and void due the decision of
BSNL board. Moreover in the 25th NC meeting held on 24th June, 2011 under
your Chairmanship has denied the officiating promotions to the TTAs who
are otherwise eligible to appear for JTO departmental exam citing the non
availability of such provision under JTO RR-2001 (refer agenda point 9.7 of
25th NCM).
Thus I request you to immediately cancel the officiating promotions given to
the TTAs as per the earlier arrangement and conduct the JTO departmental
exam under 35% quota without further delay as there is no legal hurdle in
conducting the same. The conduct of JTO departmental exam will rest the
question of officiating promotions any further. This will further create the
opportunities for the qualified and motivated work force who are otherwise
feeling let down for the want of promotions for last over 7- 10 years.
Yours truly
Dharmendra Verma
General Secretary
Copy to: Shri R.K. Upadhayay, Chairman Cum Managing Director, BSNL.
To
Shri A.K. Garg
Director (HR)
BSNL
Bharat Sanchar Bhavan
New Delhi
Reference: Corporate office letter no.5-4/2004/Pers.IV dated 13th May, 2004
& Minutes of the 25th National Council (Agenda point 9.7).
Subject: Cancellation of TTA to JTO officiating promotions and conduct of
JTO departmental exam, regarding.
Dear Sir
The TTA’s are given officiating promotions to JTO cadre as per the agreement
reached between the then recognized union NFTE and BSNL management
in the 5th National Council meeting. The eligibility of these TTAs have since
then been quashed by the Honurable High Court of Punjab and Haryana,
Chandigarh consequently BSNL board in its 104th meeting has cancelled
further diversion of JTO posts.
The continuance of officiating promotions to these TTAs is not correct as
the agreement reached in the 5th NC stands null and void due the decision of
BSNL board. Moreover in the 25th NC meeting held on 24th June, 2011 under
your Chairmanship has denied the officiating promotions to the TTAs who
are otherwise eligible to appear for JTO departmental exam citing the non
availability of such provision under JTO RR-2001 (refer agenda point 9.7 of
25th NCM).
Thus I request you to immediately cancel the officiating promotions given to
the TTAs as per the earlier arrangement and conduct the JTO departmental
exam under 35% quota without further delay as there is no legal hurdle in
conducting the same. The conduct of JTO departmental exam will rest the
question of officiating promotions any further. This will further create the
opportunities for the qualified and motivated work force who are otherwise
feeling let down for the want of promotions for last over 7- 10 years.
Yours truly
Dharmendra Verma
General Secretary
Copy to: Shri R.K. Upadhayay, Chairman Cum Managing Director, BSNL.
2011/09/24
fr22(1)a(i)
Telecommunication Employees Progressive Union
(Registration No.2629CNI)
Central Head Quarters
Rtn.PHF.R.Venkataraman
Working President, TEPU CHQ,
Member, Staff Side, BSNL National Council.
Ref: TEPUCHQ / OffgJTO
Date: 21.9.2011
To,
Sri.R.K.Upadhyaya,
Chairman & Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
New Delhi 110 001.
Sir,
Sub:
Implementation of FR 22(1) (a) (i) benefits by complying the orders of CAT Principal Bench
Case of Officiating JTOs.
We invite your personal intervention on the age old issue that is pending settlement for long. Every officer
in the Corporate Office is seized of the issue and aware of the genuineness of the claim. Due to obvious
reasons, in spite of repeated demands from almost BSNL Non Executive and Executives Unions, demand
in the forum of National Council, it is a pity; the management maintains its silence. We once again refer it
to you hoping that you will personally look into the merit of the issue and settle it.
As of today, about 1900 TTAs qualified and imparted with Phase I (some of them Phase II training
partially) training are deployed to officiate as JTOs. They continue the discharge all the functions of JTOs
for several years (more than 8 years). However, the management restricted their payment by invoking
provisions under FR 35.
CAT, Ernakulam delivered Judgment to grant the JTO Pay Scale to Officiating JTOs. However, BSNL
management implemented the verdict of CAT, limiting it to Officiating JTOs of Kerala Circle, that too with
a condition that the payment is subject to the final outcome of the case.
When the Staff Side raised the issue in the 24th National Council Meeting held on 31.8.2010, the Official
Side held “The case in OA No.1282/2010 is before the CAT Principal Bench, the entire matter is under
judicial scrutiny, the issue can be settled only after the decision of the courts.”
Now CAT Principal Bench, New Delhi while dismissing the Review Petition filed by BSNL has
ordered to implement its order dated 26.8.2010 within a period of six months from 5.9.2011.
Sir, you may agree that utilizing a group of officials (entitled to be absorbed as JTOs since they have
been imparted with Phase I training) as JTOs without paying them the Pay of JTO is an attempt of labour
exploitation. Since we are aware of the predicaments the management faces in regularizing them, we do
not venture to term this as an exploitation resulting into unfair labour practice.
In consideration of the facts of the case, we request your indulgence for suitable directive and instructions
for uniform implementation of the verdict of CAT Ernakulam and thus extend the hands of Justice to
Officiating JTOs.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
(R.Venkataraman)
Wkg.President & Member Staff Side
(Registration No.2629CNI)
Central Head Quarters
Rtn.PHF.R.Venkataraman
Working President, TEPU CHQ,
Member, Staff Side, BSNL National Council.
Ref: TEPUCHQ / OffgJTO
Date: 21.9.2011
To,
Sri.R.K.Upadhyaya,
Chairman & Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
New Delhi 110 001.
Sir,
Sub:
Implementation of FR 22(1) (a) (i) benefits by complying the orders of CAT Principal Bench
Case of Officiating JTOs.
We invite your personal intervention on the age old issue that is pending settlement for long. Every officer
in the Corporate Office is seized of the issue and aware of the genuineness of the claim. Due to obvious
reasons, in spite of repeated demands from almost BSNL Non Executive and Executives Unions, demand
in the forum of National Council, it is a pity; the management maintains its silence. We once again refer it
to you hoping that you will personally look into the merit of the issue and settle it.
As of today, about 1900 TTAs qualified and imparted with Phase I (some of them Phase II training
partially) training are deployed to officiate as JTOs. They continue the discharge all the functions of JTOs
for several years (more than 8 years). However, the management restricted their payment by invoking
provisions under FR 35.
CAT, Ernakulam delivered Judgment to grant the JTO Pay Scale to Officiating JTOs. However, BSNL
management implemented the verdict of CAT, limiting it to Officiating JTOs of Kerala Circle, that too with
a condition that the payment is subject to the final outcome of the case.
When the Staff Side raised the issue in the 24th National Council Meeting held on 31.8.2010, the Official
Side held “The case in OA No.1282/2010 is before the CAT Principal Bench, the entire matter is under
judicial scrutiny, the issue can be settled only after the decision of the courts.”
Now CAT Principal Bench, New Delhi while dismissing the Review Petition filed by BSNL has
ordered to implement its order dated 26.8.2010 within a period of six months from 5.9.2011.
Sir, you may agree that utilizing a group of officials (entitled to be absorbed as JTOs since they have
been imparted with Phase I training) as JTOs without paying them the Pay of JTO is an attempt of labour
exploitation. Since we are aware of the predicaments the management faces in regularizing them, we do
not venture to term this as an exploitation resulting into unfair labour practice.
In consideration of the facts of the case, we request your indulgence for suitable directive and instructions
for uniform implementation of the verdict of CAT Ernakulam and thus extend the hands of Justice to
Officiating JTOs.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
(R.Venkataraman)
Wkg.President & Member Staff Side
2011/09/19
SAMPITRODA COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS VRS IN BSNL
BSNL proposal: VRS based on guidelines of the Dept. of Public Enterprises.
Eligibility: Employees of age above 45 years can opt for VRS
JAC meets on 21.9.2011 to decide further course of action over curtailed facilities & VRS proposal
BSNL invites unions on different dates to discuss the contemplated VRS
WE ARE YES, BSNL's stand on VRS. Note on the scheme tabled before
Hon'ble MOC & IT
Eligibility: Employees of age above 45 years can opt for VRS
JAC meets on 21.9.2011 to decide further course of action over curtailed facilities & VRS proposal
BSNL invites unions on different dates to discuss the contemplated VRS
WE ARE YES, BSNL's stand on VRS. Note on the scheme tabled before
Hon'ble MOC & IT
2011/09/09
JAC CALL ONE DAY DHARNA ON 14/09/2011
The Joint Action Committe BSNL gave a call for a one day DHARNA in front of all PGM/CGM and Corporate offices at New Delhi on 14/09/2011 (i.e) monday and all are requested to participate and make it a grand success.
N Kabeerdas .Y.Ramakrishna Rao and M Rajender Reddy met sri P.ASOKBABU DGS BSNL EU today at CGM's union office 9th floor, Hyderabad , Andhra Pradesh at14.00 hrs and deeply discussed about implementation of FR 22(1)(a)(1) judgement ,and gave a Judgement copy to sri P.Asokbabu
N Kabeerdas .Y.Ramakrishna Rao and M Rajender Reddy met sri P.ASOKBABU DGS BSNL EU today at CGM's union office 9th floor, Hyderabad , Andhra Pradesh at14.00 hrs and deeply discussed about implementation of FR 22(1)(a)(1) judgement ,and gave a Judgement copy to sri P.Asokbabu
2011/09/08
BSNLMRS WITHOUT VOUCHER / LTC CORTAILING IN BSNL
As per corporate office Lr no 7-8/2010/EF/Part/1- dated 5-9-2011.
Expenditure control in BSNL . Facility with drawn without voucher BSNL MRS
Freezing of LTC and with drawl of Leave encashment.
The JAC had an emergency meeting for stopping anti workers decision of BSNL on 7/9/11 at new Delhi . They also planned one day DHARNA in front of all BSNL PGM/CGM and Corporate office at NEW DELHI.
All our members are requested to participate actively in the agitation programme given by JAC......
Our central co coordinator addressed the gathering in Saroor nagar xge on 7/9/11 at Hyderabad AP.
Expenditure control in BSNL . Facility with drawn without voucher BSNL MRS
Freezing of LTC and with drawl of Leave encashment.
The JAC had an emergency meeting for stopping anti workers decision of BSNL on 7/9/11 at new Delhi . They also planned one day DHARNA in front of all BSNL PGM/CGM and Corporate office at NEW DELHI.
All our members are requested to participate actively in the agitation programme given by JAC......
Our central co coordinator addressed the gathering in Saroor nagar xge on 7/9/11 at Hyderabad AP.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL Principal Bench FR 22(1)(a)(1) JUDGEMENT
FLASH FLASH FLASH .........ARISE AWAKE AND STOP NOT TILL THE GOAL IS REACHED
The central co ordinator is continuously in contact with all the Unions/Associations leaders and mainly
sri.V.A.N.NAMBOODRI
sri.P.ABHIMANYU .sri.P.ASOKABABU .BSNL EU .. sri.R.VENKATRAMAN .sri.SUBBURAMAN .TEPU ...
sri.SURESHKUMAR . BSNL MS
sri.PRAHALAD RAI .AIBSNL EA
and other National Council Members to implement the Judgement with in 6 weeks as per time given by Hon'ble CAT PB .DB NEW DELHI ............
Our association is sincerely thankful to all the leaders/members who are supporting directly or indirectly to get this judgement .......
and special thanks to Mrs.RANICHHABRA counsel for our case....
JUDGEMENT COPY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI
Review Application No.125 of 2011
Misc. Application No.3082 of 2010
in
Original Application No.1282 of 2010
This the 5th day of September, 2011
HON BLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN
HON BLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A)
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & others Applicants
( By Shri Sameer Aggarwal, Advocate )
Versus
BSNL Officers Association Regd.) & Anr. Respondents
( By Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Advocate )
O R D E R
Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
The positive case as set up by the applicants in the Original Application was that the relief asked for by them would be covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in Ernakulam Bench in the matter of M. V. Salilkumar & others v Chairman & Managing Director & others (TA No.84/2008 and connected matters, decided on 15.7.2009). During the course of hearing, no dispute was raised that the relief asked for by the applicants would be different from the one that was accorded by the Bench at Ernakulam, or that the facts of the present case would be in any way different from the one subject matter of decision in TA No.84/2008 and connected matters decided by the Ernakulam Bench. The only dispute raised was that once, a writ against the order of the Tribunal in Ernakulam had been filed in the Kerala High Court, the matter be kept pending. Paras 2 and 3 of the order passed by us on 26.8.2010 read as follows:
2. Inasmuch as, present matter is covered in favour of the applicants by the decision of Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of M.V. Salilakumar & Ors. V/s. The Chairman & Managing Director & Ors., (TA No.84/2008 and other connected TAs decided on 15.07.2009), there will be no need to give facts in detail.
3. We have gone through the judgment passed by Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal and are in respectful agreement with the same. We are, however, informed that against the judgment aforesaid, respondents have filed two writs in the Hon ble High Court of Kerala and the same have been admitted, but in none of these two writs, stay has been granted. If perhaps, the respondents would have obtained the stay, we may have adjourned this case sine die. But, inasmuch as, once there is no stay and, therefore, the applicants in TAs are getting the relief granted to them, there will be no need whatsoever to stay the proceedings of this case.
The order is oral passed in the presence of counsel representing the parties. Against our orders a writ petition bearing WP(C) No.1339/2011 came to be filed before the Delhi High Court by the respondents in the OA, which has been disposed of vide orders dated 28.2.2011. The order passed by the High Court reads as follows:
Heard Mr. Sameer Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
It is submitted by him that the tribunal has erroneously placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Ernakulam Bench in the matter of M. V. Salilkumar & Ors. v. The Chairman & Manging Director & Ors., whereas the factual matrix is absolutely different and the said decision is not applicable to the case at hand.
On a perusal of the order passed by the tribunal, we do not perceive that this stand has been taken before the tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stand was taken but the same has not been adverted to in the order.
Regard being had to the aforesaid submission, we are inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to file an application for review under Section 22(F) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
We may hasten to add that we have not dwelled upon the merits of the contentions as we have granted liberty to file an application for review.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition as well as the application stand disposed of.
Perusal of the order passed by the High Court would clearly manifest that from perusal of the order passed by us it could not be perceived that the stand as taken in the High Court that no reliance could be placed upon the decision of the Ernakulam Bench, as the factual matrix of the case in hand and that of one before the Ernakulam Bench were entirely different, was taken before the Tribunal in the OA. Learned counsel for the petitioners before the High Court would, however, submit that such a stand was taken, but the same was not even adverted to by the Tribunal. It is in consideration of the plea raised by the counsel for petitioners before the High Court that such stand had been taken but not adverted to by the Tribunal, that the petitioners were granted liberty to file review before the Tribunal. Hence, present application seeking review of our order.
2. We have gone through the contents of the review application. It is unfortunate that for some time past a tendency is growing in the litigants that instead of contesting the matter on legal and factual issues, which is their right, by often twisting the facts before the Hon ble High Court, they are able to secure favourable orders, even though for limited duration. The facts of the present case would demonstrate that the review applicants have indeed indulged in misadventure by being totally indiscriminate and by twisting facts, bordering on falsehood. In para 2(a) to (c) of the review application, facts leading to filing of the OA have been mentioned. Sub-paras (d) to (i) of para 2 read as follows:
d) Inadvertently and by mistake, Kerala Circle of the Respondents Corporation granted benefit of pay applicable to JTO (Group-B, Gazetted) to the Officiating Local JTOs, who had been promoted on adhoc basis from TTA (Group-C Cadre) post, which excess pay was later attempted to be recovered by way of an office order against which some of officiating local JTOs in Kerala Circle filed Writ Petition No.28349/2005 and other Writ Petitions before the Hon ble Kerala High Court wherein they claimed fixation of pay under Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a)(i) in the scale of pay applicable to the post of JTO (Group-B Gazetted) and objected to the recovery which Writ Petitions were decided in their favour by a Hon ble Single Judge of the Hon ble Kerala High Court. The Respondent Corporation appealed against the above decision of the Hon ble Single Judge to the Hon ble Division Bench of Kerala High Court by way of Writ Appeal No.1735/2006 and others in which the Hon ble Division Bench while setting aside the decision of the Hon ble Single Judge directed the Respondent Corporation to give an opportunity of being heard to the Writ Respondents regarding fixation of pay. Accordingly, the Respondent Corporation granted opportunity of hearing and the Orders dated 20.11.2007 and 04.12.2007 rejected the claim of the Officiating Local JTOs regarding fixation of their pay as applicable to JTO.
e) Some of the Officiating Local JTOs again filed writ petitions against Orders dated 20.11.20078 and 04.12.2007 before the Hon ble single Judge of the Hon ble Kerala High Court, which writ petitions were later transferred to the Ernakulam Bench of the Hon ble Tribunal and the transferred petitions came to be decided in favour of the applicants by the Hon ble Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal vide decision dated 15.07.2009 in the case of M.V. Salilkumar & Ors. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director & Ors. It is pertinent to submit here that the Hon ble Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal has simply followed the decision of the Hon ble Single Judge passed earlier which decision was set aside by the Hon ble Division Bench of the Hon ble Kerala High Court but did not independently apply its mind to the facts and law as is evident from para 10 of the judgment dated 15.07.2009.
f) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.07.2009 of the Ernakulam Bench of the Hon ble Tribunal the Respondent Corporation filed Writ Petition Nos.8077/2010 and 7723/2010 before the Hon ble Kerala High Court which Writ Petitions have been admitted by the Hon ble High Court. However, no stay of the decision appealed against was granted by the Hon ble Kerala High Court.
g) Claiming parity and seeking extension of benefit granted vide Judgment dated 15.07.2009 by the Ernakulam Bench of the Hon ble Tribunal, the Applicants herein, filed Original Application No.3213 of 2009 before the Hon ble Tribunal which Original Application No.3213 of 2009 was disposed of at the admission stage itself, vide Order dated 11.11.2009 by the Hon ble Tribunal directing the Respondent Corporation to examine whether the cases of the Applicants are covered by the aforesaid decision of the Ernakulam Bench and pass appropriate orders accordingly, and if it is found otherwise to pass a reasoned, and speaking order in the matter, under intimation to the Applicants.
h) Pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon ble Tribunal in its Order dated 11.11.2009 the Respondent Corporation examined the matter and passed reasoned and speaking order dated 05.01.2010 inter alia, on the ground that the officiating officers are not fulfilling the eligibility condition vis-`-vis the prescribed pre-appointed training as per Rule 5(2) of the JTO Recruitment Rules, 1996 they are entitled for pay fixation under FR-35 as per the provisions of GOI Order 3 below FR 35, DOPT OM No.1/10/89-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 22.10.1990; that the Respondent Corporation has not accepted the judgment of the Hon ble Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal and challenged the same by way of Writ Petitions before the Hon ble Kerala High Court and expressed its regret that it will not be possible for the Respondent to concede the request of the Applicants for fixing the pay of officiating JTOs without restriction under FR 35.
i) Aggrieved by the Order dated 05.01.2010 passed by the Respondent, the Applicants filed Original Application No.1282 of 2010 before the Hon ble Tribunal. The Respondent Corporation filed its counter to the original application claiming that the fixation of pay is to be done under Fundamental Rule 35 but not under Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a)(i) as claimed by the Applicants. It was specifically prayed in the counter that the matter may be kept in abeyance in view of the Respondent Corporation filing Writ Petitions before the Hon ble Kerala High Court which have been admitted and are pending for adjudication to which the Hon ble Tribunal did not agree but simply followed the decision dated 15.07.2009 of the Ernakulam Bench of the Hon ble Tribunal without appreciating that the facts in the present O.A. are different from the facts of the O.A. decided by the Ernakulam Bench of the Hon ble Tribunal.
As stated earlier the pay of the applicants before the Ernakulam Bench of the Hon ble Tribunal was initially fixed on their promotion, applying FR 22(I)(a)(1) and their carry home pay was increased by Rs.1,500/- per month. On the mistake being realized the BSNL directed the refixation of the applicants before the Ernakulam bench of the Hon ble Tribunal pay under FR 35 by which maximum amount of Rs,1000/- was to be given above the basic pay and not in the scale of pay of the post of JTO. The amount wrongly paid was ordered to be recovered. Being aggrieved of this action the applicants before the Ernakulam Bench of the Hon ble Tribunal had approached the Hon ble High Court of Kerala and wee granted interim stay.
As against this in the case of the Applicants before the Delhi Bench of the Hon ble Tribunal, since the applicants were not satisfying the requirements stipulated under the JTO Recruitment Rules of 1996, their pay was rightly fixed under FR 35. Thus, the applicants before the Delhi Bench of the Hon ble Tribunal are on a completely different pedestal with no similarity whatsoever with the applicants before the Ernakulam Bench of the Hon ble Tribunal.
It is only towards the end of para 2(i) at the bottom of page 7 that, for the first time, it is mentioned that as the applicants before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal did not satisfy the requirements stipulated under the JTO Recruitment Rules of 1996, their pay was rightly fixed under FR-35, and thus they would be on a completely different pedestal with no similarity whatsoever with the applicants before the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal. It is surprising to note that if it was the case of the review applicants that the facts leading to filing of the TA culminating into decision by the Ernakulam Bench are entirely different, why at every stage, be it in the OA or the review application, it has been time and again mentioned that the respondents (review applicants) had not accepted the judgment of the Ernakulam Bench and had, therefore, filed a writ against the same. It could well be said that in the case before the Ernakulam Bench and the writ that has been filed in the Kerala High Court the facts are entirely different and the said judgment would have no relevance whatsoever in deciding the controversy in issue. Such was never the case of the respondents. In the order impugned in the OA which came to be passed pursuant to directions given by us on 11.11.2009 in OA No.3213/2009 it has been clearly mentioned in clause (v) that BSNL has not accepted the judgment dated 15.07.2009 of Hon ble CAT, Ernakulam and has initiated necessary action for challenging the said judgment before the Hon ble High Court of Kerala . What really surprises us is that what was the need of saying so if the facts of the case in hand and the one subject matter of decision by the Ernakulam Bench were different. We are not making a mention of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents in the OA as the same would unnecessarily burden the judgment. We would rather prefer to annex with this judgment as Annexure-A copy of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents in the OA, which we order to be read as part of the judgment. There is not a single sentence mentioned therein that the facts of the case before the Ernakulam Bench and the one before us would be entirely different.
3. Why we have observed that of late a tendency is growing amongst the litigants to secure orders by hook or by crook is that this is not the only case where the respondents have sought and have been permitted to file review on mis-stating the facts before the Hon ble High Court. We have found from our experience that in some of the writs filed against our orders also a plea is raised that certain points were urged before the Tribunal, but it did not deal with the same. More often than not, on such statement, permission is sought and granted to move application for review. With a view to obviate such situation, we would hereafter specifically state in our orders that no points other than mentioned therein were raised by the learned counsel representing the parties.
4. The review application is dismissed.
M.A. No.3082/2010
This is an application seeking execution of the order dated 26.8.2010 passed in the OA. It was kept pending as against our order aforesaid, as permitted by the Hon ble High Court in the writ petition filed against the same, the respondents were allowed to make application for review, which has been dismissed by us today. That being so, we order the respondents to implement our order dated 26.8.2010 within a period of six weeks from today.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/
Ur.N . KABEER DAS
The central co ordinator is continuously in contact with all the Unions/Associations leaders and mainly
sri.V.A.N.NAMBOODRI
sri.P.ABHIMANYU .sri.P.ASOKABABU .BSNL EU .. sri.R.VENKATRAMAN .sri.SUBBURAMAN .TEPU ...
sri.SURESHKUMAR . BSNL MS
sri.PRAHALAD RAI .AIBSNL EA
and other National Council Members to implement the Judgement with in 6 weeks as per time given by Hon'ble CAT PB .DB NEW DELHI ............
Our association is sincerely thankful to all the leaders/members who are supporting directly or indirectly to get this judgement .......
and special thanks to Mrs.RANICHHABRA counsel for our case....
JUDGEMENT COPY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI
Review Application No.125 of 2011
Misc. Application No.3082 of 2010
in
Original Application No.1282 of 2010
This the 5th day of September, 2011
HON BLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN
HON BLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A)
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & others Applicants
( By Shri Sameer Aggarwal, Advocate )
Versus
BSNL Officers Association Regd.) & Anr. Respondents
( By Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Advocate )
O R D E R
Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
The positive case as set up by the applicants in the Original Application was that the relief asked for by them would be covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in Ernakulam Bench in the matter of M. V. Salilkumar & others v Chairman & Managing Director & others (TA No.84/2008 and connected matters, decided on 15.7.2009). During the course of hearing, no dispute was raised that the relief asked for by the applicants would be different from the one that was accorded by the Bench at Ernakulam, or that the facts of the present case would be in any way different from the one subject matter of decision in TA No.84/2008 and connected matters decided by the Ernakulam Bench. The only dispute raised was that once, a writ against the order of the Tribunal in Ernakulam had been filed in the Kerala High Court, the matter be kept pending. Paras 2 and 3 of the order passed by us on 26.8.2010 read as follows:
2. Inasmuch as, present matter is covered in favour of the applicants by the decision of Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of M.V. Salilakumar & Ors. V/s. The Chairman & Managing Director & Ors., (TA No.84/2008 and other connected TAs decided on 15.07.2009), there will be no need to give facts in detail.
3. We have gone through the judgment passed by Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal and are in respectful agreement with the same. We are, however, informed that against the judgment aforesaid, respondents have filed two writs in the Hon ble High Court of Kerala and the same have been admitted, but in none of these two writs, stay has been granted. If perhaps, the respondents would have obtained the stay, we may have adjourned this case sine die. But, inasmuch as, once there is no stay and, therefore, the applicants in TAs are getting the relief granted to them, there will be no need whatsoever to stay the proceedings of this case.
The order is oral passed in the presence of counsel representing the parties. Against our orders a writ petition bearing WP(C) No.1339/2011 came to be filed before the Delhi High Court by the respondents in the OA, which has been disposed of vide orders dated 28.2.2011. The order passed by the High Court reads as follows:
Heard Mr. Sameer Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
It is submitted by him that the tribunal has erroneously placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Ernakulam Bench in the matter of M. V. Salilkumar & Ors. v. The Chairman & Manging Director & Ors., whereas the factual matrix is absolutely different and the said decision is not applicable to the case at hand.
On a perusal of the order passed by the tribunal, we do not perceive that this stand has been taken before the tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stand was taken but the same has not been adverted to in the order.
Regard being had to the aforesaid submission, we are inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to file an application for review under Section 22(F) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
We may hasten to add that we have not dwelled upon the merits of the contentions as we have granted liberty to file an application for review.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition as well as the application stand disposed of.
Perusal of the order passed by the High Court would clearly manifest that from perusal of the order passed by us it could not be perceived that the stand as taken in the High Court that no reliance could be placed upon the decision of the Ernakulam Bench, as the factual matrix of the case in hand and that of one before the Ernakulam Bench were entirely different, was taken before the Tribunal in the OA. Learned counsel for the petitioners before the High Court would, however, submit that such a stand was taken, but the same was not even adverted to by the Tribunal. It is in consideration of the plea raised by the counsel for petitioners before the High Court that such stand had been taken but not adverted to by the Tribunal, that the petitioners were granted liberty to file review before the Tribunal. Hence, present application seeking review of our order.
2. We have gone through the contents of the review application. It is unfortunate that for some time past a tendency is growing in the litigants that instead of contesting the matter on legal and factual issues, which is their right, by often twisting the facts before the Hon ble High Court, they are able to secure favourable orders, even though for limited duration. The facts of the present case would demonstrate that the review applicants have indeed indulged in misadventure by being totally indiscriminate and by twisting facts, bordering on falsehood. In para 2(a) to (c) of the review application, facts leading to filing of the OA have been mentioned. Sub-paras (d) to (i) of para 2 read as follows:
d) Inadvertently and by mistake, Kerala Circle of the Respondents Corporation granted benefit of pay applicable to JTO (Group-B, Gazetted) to the Officiating Local JTOs, who had been promoted on adhoc basis from TTA (Group-C Cadre) post, which excess pay was later attempted to be recovered by way of an office order against which some of officiating local JTOs in Kerala Circle filed Writ Petition No.28349/2005 and other Writ Petitions before the Hon ble Kerala High Court wherein they claimed fixation of pay under Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a)(i) in the scale of pay applicable to the post of JTO (Group-B Gazetted) and objected to the recovery which Writ Petitions were decided in their favour by a Hon ble Single Judge of the Hon ble Kerala High Court. The Respondent Corporation appealed against the above decision of the Hon ble Single Judge to the Hon ble Division Bench of Kerala High Court by way of Writ Appeal No.1735/2006 and others in which the Hon ble Division Bench while setting aside the decision of the Hon ble Single Judge directed the Respondent Corporation to give an opportunity of being heard to the Writ Respondents regarding fixation of pay. Accordingly, the Respondent Corporation granted opportunity of hearing and the Orders dated 20.11.2007 and 04.12.2007 rejected the claim of the Officiating Local JTOs regarding fixation of their pay as applicable to JTO.
e) Some of the Officiating Local JTOs again filed writ petitions against Orders dated 20.11.20078 and 04.12.2007 before the Hon ble single Judge of the Hon ble Kerala High Court, which writ petitions were later transferred to the Ernakulam Bench of the Hon ble Tribunal and the transferred petitions came to be decided in favour of the applicants by the Hon ble Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal vide decision dated 15.07.2009 in the case of M.V. Salilkumar & Ors. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director & Ors. It is pertinent to submit here that the Hon ble Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal has simply followed the decision of the Hon ble Single Judge passed earlier which decision was set aside by the Hon ble Division Bench of the Hon ble Kerala High Court but did not independently apply its mind to the facts and law as is evident from para 10 of the judgment dated 15.07.2009.
f) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.07.2009 of the Ernakulam Bench of the Hon ble Tribunal the Respondent Corporation filed Writ Petition Nos.8077/2010 and 7723/2010 before the Hon ble Kerala High Court which Writ Petitions have been admitted by the Hon ble High Court. However, no stay of the decision appealed against was granted by the Hon ble Kerala High Court.
g) Claiming parity and seeking extension of benefit granted vide Judgment dated 15.07.2009 by the Ernakulam Bench of the Hon ble Tribunal, the Applicants herein, filed Original Application No.3213 of 2009 before the Hon ble Tribunal which Original Application No.3213 of 2009 was disposed of at the admission stage itself, vide Order dated 11.11.2009 by the Hon ble Tribunal directing the Respondent Corporation to examine whether the cases of the Applicants are covered by the aforesaid decision of the Ernakulam Bench and pass appropriate orders accordingly, and if it is found otherwise to pass a reasoned, and speaking order in the matter, under intimation to the Applicants.
h) Pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon ble Tribunal in its Order dated 11.11.2009 the Respondent Corporation examined the matter and passed reasoned and speaking order dated 05.01.2010 inter alia, on the ground that the officiating officers are not fulfilling the eligibility condition vis-`-vis the prescribed pre-appointed training as per Rule 5(2) of the JTO Recruitment Rules, 1996 they are entitled for pay fixation under FR-35 as per the provisions of GOI Order 3 below FR 35, DOPT OM No.1/10/89-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 22.10.1990; that the Respondent Corporation has not accepted the judgment of the Hon ble Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal and challenged the same by way of Writ Petitions before the Hon ble Kerala High Court and expressed its regret that it will not be possible for the Respondent to concede the request of the Applicants for fixing the pay of officiating JTOs without restriction under FR 35.
i) Aggrieved by the Order dated 05.01.2010 passed by the Respondent, the Applicants filed Original Application No.1282 of 2010 before the Hon ble Tribunal. The Respondent Corporation filed its counter to the original application claiming that the fixation of pay is to be done under Fundamental Rule 35 but not under Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a)(i) as claimed by the Applicants. It was specifically prayed in the counter that the matter may be kept in abeyance in view of the Respondent Corporation filing Writ Petitions before the Hon ble Kerala High Court which have been admitted and are pending for adjudication to which the Hon ble Tribunal did not agree but simply followed the decision dated 15.07.2009 of the Ernakulam Bench of the Hon ble Tribunal without appreciating that the facts in the present O.A. are different from the facts of the O.A. decided by the Ernakulam Bench of the Hon ble Tribunal.
As stated earlier the pay of the applicants before the Ernakulam Bench of the Hon ble Tribunal was initially fixed on their promotion, applying FR 22(I)(a)(1) and their carry home pay was increased by Rs.1,500/- per month. On the mistake being realized the BSNL directed the refixation of the applicants before the Ernakulam bench of the Hon ble Tribunal pay under FR 35 by which maximum amount of Rs,1000/- was to be given above the basic pay and not in the scale of pay of the post of JTO. The amount wrongly paid was ordered to be recovered. Being aggrieved of this action the applicants before the Ernakulam Bench of the Hon ble Tribunal had approached the Hon ble High Court of Kerala and wee granted interim stay.
As against this in the case of the Applicants before the Delhi Bench of the Hon ble Tribunal, since the applicants were not satisfying the requirements stipulated under the JTO Recruitment Rules of 1996, their pay was rightly fixed under FR 35. Thus, the applicants before the Delhi Bench of the Hon ble Tribunal are on a completely different pedestal with no similarity whatsoever with the applicants before the Ernakulam Bench of the Hon ble Tribunal.
It is only towards the end of para 2(i) at the bottom of page 7 that, for the first time, it is mentioned that as the applicants before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal did not satisfy the requirements stipulated under the JTO Recruitment Rules of 1996, their pay was rightly fixed under FR-35, and thus they would be on a completely different pedestal with no similarity whatsoever with the applicants before the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal. It is surprising to note that if it was the case of the review applicants that the facts leading to filing of the TA culminating into decision by the Ernakulam Bench are entirely different, why at every stage, be it in the OA or the review application, it has been time and again mentioned that the respondents (review applicants) had not accepted the judgment of the Ernakulam Bench and had, therefore, filed a writ against the same. It could well be said that in the case before the Ernakulam Bench and the writ that has been filed in the Kerala High Court the facts are entirely different and the said judgment would have no relevance whatsoever in deciding the controversy in issue. Such was never the case of the respondents. In the order impugned in the OA which came to be passed pursuant to directions given by us on 11.11.2009 in OA No.3213/2009 it has been clearly mentioned in clause (v) that BSNL has not accepted the judgment dated 15.07.2009 of Hon ble CAT, Ernakulam and has initiated necessary action for challenging the said judgment before the Hon ble High Court of Kerala . What really surprises us is that what was the need of saying so if the facts of the case in hand and the one subject matter of decision by the Ernakulam Bench were different. We are not making a mention of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents in the OA as the same would unnecessarily burden the judgment. We would rather prefer to annex with this judgment as Annexure-A copy of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents in the OA, which we order to be read as part of the judgment. There is not a single sentence mentioned therein that the facts of the case before the Ernakulam Bench and the one before us would be entirely different.
3. Why we have observed that of late a tendency is growing amongst the litigants to secure orders by hook or by crook is that this is not the only case where the respondents have sought and have been permitted to file review on mis-stating the facts before the Hon ble High Court. We have found from our experience that in some of the writs filed against our orders also a plea is raised that certain points were urged before the Tribunal, but it did not deal with the same. More often than not, on such statement, permission is sought and granted to move application for review. With a view to obviate such situation, we would hereafter specifically state in our orders that no points other than mentioned therein were raised by the learned counsel representing the parties.
4. The review application is dismissed.
M.A. No.3082/2010
This is an application seeking execution of the order dated 26.8.2010 passed in the OA. It was kept pending as against our order aforesaid, as permitted by the Hon ble High Court in the writ petition filed against the same, the respondents were allowed to make application for review, which has been dismissed by us today. That being so, we order the respondents to implement our order dated 26.8.2010 within a period of six weeks from today.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/
Ur.N . KABEER DAS
2011/09/03
FR 22 (1) (a) (1) KERALA /CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PB NEW DELHI
SOME IMPORTANT POINTS IN FR 22(1) (a) (1) & COURT DIRECTIONS/ORDERS
The clarification for "F.R 17
(1) Subject to any exception specifically made in this rules and to the provision of sub rule (2) an officer shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date when he assumes the duties of the post, and shall case to draw them as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties;
Provided that an officer who is absent from duty without any authority shall not be entitled to any pay and allowances during the period of such absence
(2) The date from which a person recruited overseas shall commence to draw pay on first appointment shall be determined by the general or special orders of the authority by whom he is appointed
F.R 22(1)(a)(1) reads as under
"The initial pay of a government servant who is appointed to a post on a time scale of pay is regulated as follows ;
(a)(1) Where a government servant holding a post , other than a tenure post , in a substantive or temporary or officiating capacity is promoted or appointed in a substantive , temporary or officiating capacity, as the case may be , subject to the fulfillment of the eligibility conditions as prescribed in the relevant Relevant Recruitment Rules, to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him , his initial pay in the time scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the notional pay arrived at by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post held by him regularly by an increment at the stage at which such pay has accrued or whichever is more ."
F.R. 35 reads as under
"The Central Government may fix the pay of officiating Government servant at an amount less than that admissible under these rules."
The applicants have further submitted that they fulfilled the eligibility conditions for appointment to the post of JTO in all respects and the said post carries duties and responsibilities of greater importance than the post of TTA .As such there pay cannot be fixed at an amount less than the pay admissible to
JTO under the rules. They have also relied upon the Exhibit P-23 judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in P.J.Nelson and others v/s The Chairman and M.D,BSNL, New Delhi,in W.p.(C) No.
35938/2005(S) where in the petitioners therein were similarly placed as the applicants.The Hon'ble High Court held as under
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI
Reng CA-3213/09,MA-1941/09
BSNL officers Association & ORS Applicant.Versus BSNL Respondents
The BSNL further issued an Offoce Order dated 13.5.2004 in terms of which the TTAs who had successfully completed JTO Phase-I training were to be promoted temporarily to officiate locally as JTOs with immediate effect with minimum benefit of Rs.1000/- as per FR-35
It is the contention of the counsel that since the applicants were holding substantive post of TTAs and officiating and discharging higher responsibility of the post of JTO , their pay should have been fixed according to the FR 22(1)(a)(i) as the applicants satisfied all the stipulations contained therein.She also submits that the issue involved in this OA has already been decided by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in TA Nos. 84 to 97 of 2008[ M.V.Salilakkumar & Ors. v . The Chairman & Managing Director & Ors .], decider on 15.07.2009. A copy of the Judgement has been enclosed at Annexure P6. She has further stated that the respondents have already implemented the said Judgement and that the Chief General Manager Telecom M.P. Circle Bhopal has also fixed pay scales of officiating JTOs under Fundamental Rules 22(1)(a)(i) read with Fundamental Rule 26.
In view of the aforesaid submissions , without going into the merits of the case, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met, if the present OA is disposed of, at the admission stage itself , by directing the respondents to examine whether the cases of the applicants are covered by the aforesaid decision of the Ernakulam Bench(referred to above ), and to pass appropriate orders accordingly, and if it is found otherwise to pass a reasoned and speaking order in the matter, under intimation to the applicants. This may be done within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order . Order accordingly. No costs.
(Dr.Dharan Paul Sharma) (Shailendra Pandey)
Member (J) Member(A)
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench
OA 1282/2010
New Delhi, this the 26th day of August,2010
Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K.Bali,Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. L.K.Joshi,,Vice Chairman(A)
ORDER(ORAL)
Justice V.K.Bali,Chairman:
BSNL Officers Association (Regd) and Mr. N.Kabir Das have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,1985 seeking to quash order No.3-the matter of M.V.Salilakumar & Ors. V/s. The Chairman & Managing Director & Ors.(supra). However, we make it absolutely clear that the fate of the applicants herein would be dependent upon the writs filed by the respondents in Kerala
(L.K.Joshi) (V.K .Bali)
Vice Chairman(A) Chairman
The applicants are performing duties attached to the posts of JTOs having higher responsibilities.There is no dispute in this regard.Hence these T.As succeed.Consequently , we set aside the Annexure P25 and P26 orders dated 20.11.2007 and 4.122.2007 respectively.Respondents are directed not to recover the pay and allowances already paid to the applicants in the scale of pay of JTO .They are further directed to continue to pay to applicants pay and allowances due to them in the scale of pay of JTO as per Rule 22(1)(a)(1) of Fundamental Rules
With the aforesaid directions , these T.As are allowed .There shall be no orders as to costs
K.NOORJEHAN GEORGE PARACKEN
ADM INISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
BSNL LETTER TO N.KABEER DAS AND BSNL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
No. 3-2/2009-Pers-IV Dated 5/1/2010
Sub-Implementation of Hon'ble CAT Ernakulum Bench judgement dated 15.07.2009 in TA No 84 to 97 of 2009 for 2173 JTO officiating Officials all over India -reg
Kindly refer to the order dated 11/1/2009 of the Hon'ble CAT Principal Bench in OA No.3213 of 2009 filed by BSNL Officers Association and you . In compliance with the order /directions of Hon'ble Tribunal, the request in the matter made in your said representation at Annexure A-8 of the OA has been examined in details and I am directed to inform you as follows
As officiating orders are not fulfilling the eligibility condition viz-a-viz the prescribed pre-appointment training as per rule 5(2) of JTO recruitment rules 1996,they are entitled for pay fixation under FR 35 as per the provisions of GOI order 3 below FR 35 , DOPT OM No. 1/10/89-Estt(pay-I) dated 22.10.1990. It may be added that provisions of FR 35 are not individual to any case, rather depending upon the nature of case the relevant provision of FR SR are attracted.
Moreover , as per the direction given by Hon'ble High Court of No. WA No. 2427/2006, a speaking order was issued vide BSNL letter No.3-Gen/2/2006-Pers.IV dated 20.11.2007 clarifying that as the officiating officers do not fulfill the eligibility condition viz-a-viz the prescribed pre-appointment training as provided under rule 5(2) of JTO Recruitment Rule 1996,their pay has been restricted under FR 35 as per the provisions of GOI order 3 below under FR 35 , DOPT OM No. 1/10/89-estt(pay I) dated 22.01.1990.But , a few officiating JTO's of Kerala circle approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala by filing some Writ petitions challenging inter-alia the speaking order dated 20/11/2007 mentioned above.The cases were subsequently transferred to CAT Ernakulam Bench which vide its judgment dated 15/07/2009 has quashed the speaking order
BSNL has not accepted the judgement dated 15/07/2009 of Hon'ble CAT ,Ernakulam and has initiated necessary action for challenging the said judgement before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.In view of the foregoing , it is to regret , that it will not be possible for BSNL at this stage , to conceive your request for fixing the pay of officiating JTO's without restriction under FR 35
This issues with the approval of competent authority .
(P.M VERMA)
BSNL LETTER challenged in Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi through MA 3082/2010
BSNL submitted RA.125/2011
FOR DIRECTION (i.e MA'S/RA'S)
In the final hearing on 30/08/2011 court no.1 serial no. 19 RA.125/2011 dismissed and judgement passed for implementation of FR 22(1)(a)(1) .
Waiting for judgement details
NEW DELHI
Reng CA-3213/09,MA-1941/09
BSNL officers Association & ORS Applicant.Versus BSNL Respondents
The BSNL further issued an Offoce Order dated 13.5.2004 in terms of which the TTAs who had successfully completed JTO Phase-I training were to be promoted temporarily to officiate locally as JTOs with immediate effect with minimum benefit of Rs.1000/- as per FR-35
It is the contention of the counsel that since the applicants were holding substantive post of TTAs and officiating and discharging higher responsibility of the post of JTO , their pay should have been fixed according to the FR 22(1)(a)(i) as the applicants satisfied all the stipulations contained therein.She also submits that the issue involved in this OA has already been decided by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in TA Nos. 84 to 97 of 2008[ M.V.Salilakkumar & Ors. v . The Chairman & Managing Director & Ors .], decider on 15.07.2009. A copy of the Judgement has been enclosed at Annexure P6. She has further stated that the respondents have already implemented the said Judgement and that the Chief General Manager Telecom M.P. Circle Bhopal has also fixed pay scales of officiating JTOs under Fundamental Rules 22(1)(a)(i) read with Fundamental Rule 26.
In view of the aforesaid submissions , without going into the merits of the case, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met, if the present OA is disposed of, at the admission stage itself , by directing the respondents to examine whether the cases of the applicants are covered by the aforesaid decision of the Ernakulam Bench(referred to above ), and to pass appropriate orders accordingly, and if it is found otherwise to pass a reasoned and speaking order in the matter, under intimation to the applicants. This may be done within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order . Order accordingly. No costs.
(Dr.Dharan Paul Sharma) (Shailendra Pandey)
Member (J) Member(A)
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench
OA 1282/2010
New Delhi, this the 26th day of August,2010
Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K.Bali,Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. L.K.Joshi,,Vice Chairman(A)
ORDER(ORAL)
Justice V.K.Bali,Chairman:
BSNL Officers Association (Regd) and Mr. N.Kabir Das have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,1985 seeking to quash order No.3-the matter of M.V.Salilakumar & Ors. V/s. The Chairman & Managing Director & Ors.(supra). However, we make it absolutely clear that the fate of the applicants herein would be dependent upon the writs filed by the respondents in Kerala
(L.K.Joshi) (V.K .Bali)
Vice Chairman(A) Chairman
The applicants are performing duties attached to the posts of JTOs having higher responsibilities.There is no dispute in this regard.Hence these T.As succeed.Consequently , we set aside the Annexure P25 and P26 orders dated 20.11.2007 and 4.122.2007 respectively.Respondents are directed not to recover the pay and allowances already paid to the applicants in the scale of pay of JTO .They are further directed to continue to pay to applicants pay and allowances due to them in the scale of pay of JTO as per Rule 22(1)(a)(1) of Fundamental Rules
With the aforesaid directions , these T.As are allowed .There shall be no orders as to costs
K.NOORJEHAN GEORGE PARACKEN
ADM INISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
BSNL LETTER TO N.KABEER DAS AND BSNL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
No. 3-2/2009-Pers-IV Dated 5/1/2010
Sub-Implementation of Hon'ble CAT Ernakulum Bench judgement dated 15.07.2009 in TA No 84 to 97 of 2009 for 2173 JTO officiating Officials all over India -reg
Kindly refer to the order dated 11/1/2009 of the Hon'ble CAT Principal Bench in OA No.3213 of 2009 filed by BSNL Officers Association and you . In compliance with the order /directions of Hon'ble Tribunal, the request in the matter made in your said representation at Annexure A-8 of the OA has been examined in details and I am directed to inform you as follows
As officiating orders are not fulfilling the eligibility condition viz-a-viz the prescribed pre-appointment training as per rule 5(2) of JTO recruitment rules 1996,they are entitled for pay fixation under FR 35 as per the provisions of GOI order 3 below FR 35 , DOPT OM No. 1/10/89-Estt(pay-I) dated 22.10.1990. It may be added that provisions of FR 35 are not individual to any case, rather depending upon the nature of case the relevant provision of FR SR are attracted.
Moreover , as per the direction given by Hon'ble High Court of No. WA No. 2427/2006, a speaking order was issued vide BSNL letter No.3-Gen/2/2006-Pers.IV dated 20.11.2007 clarifying that as the officiating officers do not fulfill the eligibility condition viz-a-viz the prescribed pre-appointment training as provided under rule 5(2) of JTO Recruitment Rule 1996,their pay has been restricted under FR 35 as per the provisions of GOI order 3 below under FR 35 , DOPT OM No. 1/10/89-estt(pay I) dated 22.01.1990.But , a few officiating JTO's of Kerala circle approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala by filing some Writ petitions challenging inter-alia the speaking order dated 20/11/2007 mentioned above.The cases were subsequently transferred to CAT Ernakulam Bench which vide its judgment dated 15/07/2009 has quashed the speaking order
BSNL has not accepted the judgement dated 15/07/2009 of Hon'ble CAT ,Ernakulam and has initiated necessary action for challenging the said judgement before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.In view of the foregoing , it is to regret , that it will not be possible for BSNL at this stage , to conceive your request for fixing the pay of officiating JTO's without restriction under FR 35
This issues with the approval of competent authority .
(P.M VERMA)
BSNL LETTER challenged in Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi through MA 3082/2010
BSNL submitted RA.125/2011
FOR DIRECTION (i.e MA'S/RA'S)
In the final hearing on 30/08/2011 court no.1 serial no. 19 RA.125/2011 dismissed and judgement passed for implementation of FR 22(1)(a)(1) .
Waiting for judgement details
BSNL EU ALL INDIA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
The BSNL EU all India executive meeting is being held on 03/09/2011 at Warangal Ricemills garden Andhrapradesh,
Sri .V.AN.Namboodri All India President secretary Staff side leader and National Council Member
Sri.P.Abhimanyu , General Secretary, BSNL EU and Sri P,Asok Babu , Deputy General Secretary are attending the meeting . Hope that the meeting is a grand success.
On Sept 4th 2011 (i.e) sunday - A big felicitation function of Sri J. Sampath Rao(C/S) and National Council Member who was retired on 31st august 2011. The JTO (O) BSNL INDIA AP Circle Delegation is going to Warangal to greet his retirement life .
The delegation is also meeting all the National Council Members to discuss the latest position of FR(22)(1)(a)(1)
Sri .V.AN.Namboodri All India President secretary Staff side leader and National Council Member
Sri.P.Abhimanyu , General Secretary, BSNL EU and Sri P,Asok Babu , Deputy General Secretary are attending the meeting . Hope that the meeting is a grand success.
On Sept 4th 2011 (i.e) sunday - A big felicitation function of Sri J. Sampath Rao(C/S) and National Council Member who was retired on 31st august 2011. The JTO (O) BSNL INDIA AP Circle Delegation is going to Warangal to greet his retirement life .
The delegation is also meeting all the National Council Members to discuss the latest position of FR(22)(1)(a)(1)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)