IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP (CAT).No. 761 of 2010(S) --------------------------- OA.772/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS ------------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, B.S.N.L., STATESMAN HOUSE, NEW DELHI, PIN-110 001. 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, B.S.N.L., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 033. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, B.S.N.L., KANNUR, PIN-670 002. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVAKAIMAL, SC, BSNL RESPONDENT: --------------- GEORGE.V.V., AGED 58, S/O.LATE VARKEY, WORKING AS SENIOR TOA (P), OFFICE AT AREA MANAGER, TELECOM, B.S.N.L., PAYYANNUR, RESIDING AT AJI NIVAS, NEAR SAI MANDIR, PAYYANNUR-670 307. ADV. SRI.G.D.PANICKER FOR R1 SMT.JEENA JOSEPH FOR R1 THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... O.P.(CAT) No.761 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 30th day of November, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner. We have also gone through the order impugned in the W.P.(C). All what the Tribunal ordered is to direct the petitioners to consider respondent's claim of fixation of pay, increment and pensionary benefit treating his Military service. The case of the petitioners is that under Rule 19 of the C.C.S. Pension Rules the respondent ought to have opted for reckoning Military service for the purpose of pay fixation and pensionary benefits. Petitioners' case is that respondent failed to exercise his option within the time prescribed under Rule 19 and so much so, he is not entitled to the benefits. However, on going through the Tribunal's order, particularly para 5, we find that the Tribunal has considered the entire matter and found that the respondent's appointment itself is in Ex-service Military quota and he had furnished the documents in support of his claim. Further, petitioners themselves issued Annexure-A7 letter asking for further 2 details from the respondent. In the circumstances, the allegations made by the petitioners pertaining to lapses on the part of the respondent are unsustainable. We, therefore, dismiss the O.P.(CAT). Further, the petitioners are free to move the Tribunal for extension of time for compliance of the order of the Tribunal, if required. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms