IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 16784 of 2006(S) -------------------------- OA.218/2001 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------ N.V. DEVASSY, S/O. VAREED, AGED 40 YEARS, JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, SOUTHERN TELECOM PROJECT, MADRAS CIRCLE, RESIDING AT NEELANKAVIL, P.O. THALORE, TRICHUR-680 306. BY ADV. SRI.R.SREERAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, SANCHAR BHAVAN, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, BSNL, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, BSNL, TRICHUR SSA, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No. 16784/06 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF MEMO NO.STA/262-2/93-94/58 DATED 28.2.96 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.TCIL/11/301/3391/94-P&A DATED 17.2.99. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.6.96 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER NO.E2/SDE/CKR/98-99/157 DATED 1.4.99. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9.7.99 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.DET/VRI/ESTT/117 DATED 19.8.99 ISSUED BY THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TELECOM, VADAKKANCHERRY. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.9.00 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 9.4.01 IN OA 218/01 ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.6.05 IN O.P.No.21066/01 ON THE FILE OF THIS COURT. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 1.3.06 IN OA.218/01 ON THE FILE OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 14.11.02 IN OA.484/2000 & OA.485/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE CAT. TRUE COPY K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.16784 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JUNE, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The applicant in O.A.No.218/2001 is the writ petitioner. The respondents in that O.A. are the respondents herein. Challenging Exhibit P14 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench dismissing the said O.A., this writ petition is filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The petitioner joined the erstwhile Telecom Department as Technician in 1988. As part of the restructuring of the Department, the Technicians after giving training for them in the latest technologies were being appointed as T.T.As.(Telecom Technical Assistants). 3. The Telecom Consultancy India Ltd. is a Company floated by the Telecom Department. The staff of the said Company were being posted from the said Department after inviting options for the same. Thus, when options were invited in W.P.(C)No.16784/06 -2- 1996 the petitioner opted and his option was accepted. He was relieved from the Telecom Department on 29.2.1996 and joined the TCIL on 1.3.1996. He worked there upto 25.2.1999 and was repatriated on 26.2.1999. He rejoined the Telecom Department on 3.3.1999. Upon rejoining the Department, he found that his juniors were sent for training in October, 1996 and they were posted as T.T.A. The petitioner was sent for training on 1.4.1999. He completed the training on 11.6.1999. While awaiting posting as T.T.A., he filed Exhibit P5 representation dated 9.7.1999 before the General Manager, Kerala Telecom, claiming that his seniority may be restored and the monetary loss may be cured and compensated on account of the delay in posting as T.T.A. The Divisional Engineer replied to the said representation by Exhibit P6 pointing out that the petitioner should blame himself for having opted to go on deputation. He went there on his own volition and therefore he is responsible for his grievances. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Exhibit P7 comprehensive representation highlighting his grievances and the grounds for redressing the same before the Chief General Manager, Kerala Telecom, the next higher authority. When the said representation was pending, he filed the above O.A., before the CAT. The said O.A. was W.P.(C)No.16784/06 -3- dismissed on the ground of limitation, by Exhibit P8 order dated 9.4.2001. The said order was set aside by this Court by Exhibit P9 judgment in O.P.No.21066/01 filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal was directed to examine his case on merits. Pursuant to the remand by this Court, the matter was reconsidered by the CAT and by the present impugned order, Exhibit P14 dated 1.3.2006, the O.A. was again dismissed. The Tribunal rejected the contentions of the petitioner holding that the petitioner went on his own volition on deputation and therefore he should blame himself for not availing the opportunity to go for training. It was also held that the O.A. is not maintainable for not impleading the affected juniors. This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibit P14 order. 4. According to the petitioner, his case is squarely covered by Exhibit P15 judgment of the CAT, Ernakulam bench in O.A.No.485/2000 dated 14.11.2002. The case of the second applicant in that O.A. is identical to that of the petitioner. Though no one affected was impleaded, relief was granted in that writ petition. The petitioner also relied on paragraph 22 of that common judgment wherein, the contention raised by the respondents against the second applicant in O.A.No.485/2000 that he went on deputation on his own W.P.(C)No.16784/06 -4- volition and therefore he should blame himself, was considered and overruled. It was held that a deputationist continues in the parent cadre and he will not lose promotion chances or seniority by virtue of deputation. The petitioner submits, the said principle is squarely applicable to his case also. In view of the non-impleadment of the affected parties, the petitioner prays that the matter may be remitted to the Chief General Manager, Kerala Telecom to consider Exhibit P7 with notice to the affected parties. 5. We heard the learned Standing Counsel for the BSNL. He opposes the reliefs sought in the writ petition. He supports the order of the CAT and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. As a result of supersession of the petitioner in the matter of sending for training and consequential posting as T.T.A., serious perjudice is caused to him. His entire career, is adversely affected. Further, we notice that the view taken in paragraph 22 of Exhibit P15 judgment is the correct legal position. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the second respondent, in the light of Exhibit P15 with notice to the affected juniors. The decision on Exhibit P7 shall be taken as directed above within four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The notice to the affected W.P.(C)No.16784/06 -5- persons need not be personal notice to them, but, by circulation as in the case of calling for option, deputation, etc. The proposal to consider Exhibit P7 shall be circulated among his juniors so that any one who wants to object can file his objection. In the result, Exhibit P14 is quashed and the Writ Petition is disposed of. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn