IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 14972 of 1998(S) ----------------------- OA.629/1998 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- H. GANAPATHI IYER, S/O. HARIHARA IYER, AGED 52 YEARS, TELEPHONE OPERATOR, (COMPULSORILY RETIRED), MALIKAYIL, 44/2668a, DESABHIMANI ROAD, COCHIN-17, KALOOR. BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.R.SREERAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, PHONES, COCHIN. 2. THE AREA MANAGER, TELECOM, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI. BY // THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1: True copy of the letter No.1-71/83-NCG dated 17.12.1983 issued by the Director General, Posts and Telegraphs, New Delhi. Ext.P2: True copy of the Letter No.ST/EK-225/16/IV/21 dated 8.7.92 issued by the Assistant General Manager (Admn), Office of the General Manager, Telecom, Ernakulam, Kochi-31 to the petitioner. Ext.P3: True copy of the letter No.Q824/Coll.II/14 dated 5.2.1998 issued by the Assistant General Manager (Admn), Office of the Principal General Manager, Ernakulam, Kochi-31 to the petitioner. Ext.P4: True copy of the Biennial Cadre Review Scheme vide letter No.27-4/87-TE-II(1) dated 16th October, 1990 issued by the Director (TE), Department of Telecommunications, New Delhi. Ext.P5: True copy of the final order dated 25.5.1998 by the Honourable Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam bench. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 14972 OF 1998 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner was a Telephone Operator. He was subjected to disciplinary action and the punishment of compulsory retirement from service was imposed on him. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated in the year 1985 and the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service on 31.1.1989. The said order was set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench and the Disciplinary Authority was given liberty to pass fresh orders in the matter, after noticing the lacuna in the said order. The petitioner was again compulsorily retired from service by order dated 26.8.1991. The said order was also set aside by the Tribunal. The Disciplinary Authority, a third time, imposed on the petitioner the punishment of compulsory retirement from service on 28.10.1997. The said order was quashed by the Tribunal by order dated 25.2.2000 and the Tribunal ordered reinstatement of the petitioner in service with entire back wages. This Court affirmed the said judgment of the Tribunal by order O.P. NO. 14972/1998 2 dated 6.6.2005 in O.P. No. 8485 of 2000, but modified the direction to pay full back wages. It was ordered that only 75% of the back wages need be paid to the petitioner. The respondents carried the matter in appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court. The Apex Court affirmed the decision of this Court, it is submitted. In view of the above position, the petitioner retired from service without there being any punishment imposed on him, it is pointed out. 2. In the meantime, the petitioner moved for promotion under the OTBP and BCR Schemes. But, his claim was rejected by Ext.P3 order. That order was affirmed by the Tribunal as per Ext.P5 order. Challenging Exts.P3 and P5 orders, this Writ Petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the quashing of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, his claim for promotion is liable to be reconsidered. The claim of the petitioner for promotion was rejected earlier only because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, it is pointed out. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the respondents also. In view of the changed circumstances, we feel that the claim of the petitioner for Grade Promotion under the aforesaid schemes has to be considered by the O.P. NO. 14972/1998 3 competent authority. The petitioner may file a detailed representation, producinge the orders of the Tribunal, this Court and the Apex Court before the third respondent within a period of one month from today. In that event, the third respondent shall examine the case of the petitioner and decide whether the Grade Promotion claimed by him under the aforesaid schemes can be granted to him. A decision in this regard shall be taken by the third respondent within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ O.P. NO. 14972/1998 4 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. O.P. NO.14972/1998 JUDGMENT 2nd June, 2009