IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 7615 OF 2010(S) ------------------------- {TA.12/2008 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH} .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA,REP. BY DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION , SANCHAR BHAVAN NEW DELHI- 110011 2. THE CHAIRMAN CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., SANCHAR BHAVAN NEW DELHI- 110011 3. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMMUNICATION, BSNL, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. 4. ACCOUNTS OFFICER, O/O.THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- A.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.S.ACHUTHAN NAIR LOWER DIVISION CLERK, O/O THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TRIVANDRUM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.7615 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. The Union of India and the Bharathiya Sanchar Nigam Limited {for short “BSNL”} challenge the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal ordering that the respondent is entitled to have his length of service in the Department of posts also counted for the purpose of promotion as Junior Accountant in BSNL. A perusal of Ext.P4 judgment of the Tribunal would show that, adverting to the precedents rendered by the Apex Court, and the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court and the High Court the Tribunal came to the clear conclusion that even if an employee is transferred from one Department to another on his own request, his past services in previous Department cannot be ignored for the purpose promotion in the new Department is applicable to the case in hand. It was also found, in our view, quite rightly that the question of eligibility for promotion cannot be confused W.P.(C)No.7615 of 2010 :: 2 :: with seniority as they are two different and distinct factors. 2. Faced with the aforesaid situation and the sustainability of the findings of the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner Department stated that certain persons, who were senior to the respondent and who have preferential claims for promotion were not made parties to the proceeding, from which this writ petition arises. It is pointed out that the Tribunal did not afford opportunity to those persons. A perusal of the pleadings filed by the Department in opposition to the respondent's claim before the Tribunal would show that no such ground was raised. Having not raised any such ground in the proceedings before the Tribunal, the Department cannot be heard to contend in that regard in a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We also notice that the finality of the impugned decision inter se the applicant and the Department does not, in any manner, tie down any W.P.(C)No.7615 of 2010 :: 3 :: employee who may be otherwise aggrieved by the impugned order. Under such circumstances, we find no grounds to interfere at the instance of the Department. Accordingly, the writ petition failed and it is dismissed. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge.