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)
1. BSNL Officers Association (Regd)
Through its President Rudrapal Sharma,
O/o T-15, Atul Grove Road,
New Delhi 110 001.
2. N. Kabir Das s/o Late N. Narayana,
O/o SDOPI CMR, Charminar,
Hyderabad 500 002. Applicants
(By Advocate: Mrs. Rani Chhabra)
Versus
1. BSNL (a Government of India Enterprises)
Corporate Office, Personnel Branch,
5th Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan,
Janpath, New Delhi.
2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
BSNL (a Government of India Enterprises)
Corporate Office, Personnel Branch,
5th Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan,
Janpath, New Delhi.
3. Assistant General Manager (Personnel)
BSNL (a Government of India Enterprises)
Corporate Office, Personnel Branch,
5th Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan,
Janpath, New Delhi. Respondents.
(By Advocate: Mr. Sameer Aggarwal)
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.3-2/2009-Pers-IV dated 05.01.2010, and consequent on setting aside the order aforesaid to direct the respondents to extend the same benefits of fixation of pay and allowances under Rule 22 (1)(ia) of the Fundamental Rules to the Members of the applicant-Association as admissible to JTOs, as they have been officiating on the said posts for the last more than five years.
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.
4. For parity of reasons, we allow present Original Application in terms of the decision of Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in 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 High Court. That being so, if the writs are allowed, the respondents may withdraw the benefits given to the applicants and, therefore, there will be no need for the respondents to file separate writ in this case.
(L.K. Joshi) (V.K. Bali)
Vice Chairman (A) Chairman
/naresh
