TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvisor / Telegraph Master] = Pay Scale Rs. 1400-2300. Grade III [Senior Section Supervisor] = Pay Scale Rs. 1600-2660. Grade IV [Chief Section Supervisor] = Pay Scale Rs. 2000- 3200. 3. Initially, promotions from one Grade to the higher grade were made on the basis of seniority to the 2/3rd of the posts and on the basis of departmental examination to the 1/3rd of the posts. With effect from 30.11.1983, the Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunications (for short `the Government') introduced One Time Bound Promotion Scheme under which regular employees, who had completed sixteen years of service in a grade, were placed in the next higher grade. Thereafter, by a circular dated 16.10.1990 the Government introduced a new Scheme known as `Biennial Cadre Review' (for short `the BCR Scheme'). Under the BCR Scheme, those employees, who were on regular service as on 01.01.1990 and had completed 26 years of satisfactory service in the basic grades, were to be screened by a duly constituted Committee to assess their performance and determine their suitability for advancement and if they were found suitable they were to be upgraded in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 93, supernumerary posts were created in the scale of Rs. 2000-3200 (Grade IV) to adjust the employees who had already been given the scale of Rs.2000-3200 on the basis of their seniority in the scale of Rs.1600-2660 (Grade III). Moreover, after a review of the procedure for promotions from Grade III to Grade IV, the Government issued a fresh circular dated 13.12.1995 saying that promotion to Grade-IV may be given from amongst officials in Grade-III on the basis of their seniority in the basic grade, subject to fitness determined by the DPC and subject to the ceiling of 10% of the posts in Grade-III (scale Rs. 1600-2660) as provided in the BCR Scheme. 6. The Respondents in C.A. No. 4369 of 2006 Shri Ghanshyam Dass and others filed O.A. No. 2484 of 1997 and the Respondents in C.A. No. 4370 of 2006 Shri Chiddu Singh and others filed O.A. No. 2099 of 1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal contending that employees who were juniors to them in the basic grade but otherwise senior in Grade-III, had been given promotion to Grade-IV earlier to the dates when the Respondents were given such promotion and by a common order dated 11.08.2000 the Tribunal allowed the O. As. and direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in C.A. No. No. 3201 of 1993 an anomalous situation has been created inasmuch as a person who is in Grade I and had put in 26 years of service would be entitled for promotion from Grade I to Grade IV They were of the view that the concept of basic cadre has to be interpreted with reference to the seniority in each grade. 8. In the course of hearing before us, however, it has been brought to our notice by learned Counsel for the parties that the controversy before us is confined to promotions of only employees from Grade-III to Grade-IV and not of employees working in either Grade-I or Grade-II. This will be clear from the order dated 07.07.1992 of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Smt. Santosh Kapoor and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. O.A. No. 1455 of 1991, in which the Tribunal has directed that promotions to 10% posts in Grade-IV (Pay Scale 2000-3200) would have to be based on seniority in basic cadres subject to fulfillment of other conditions in the BCR Scheme and it is this order of the Tribunal which was affirmed by this Court in the order dated 09.09.1993 in Civil Appeal No. 3201 of 1993. This will also be clear from the fresh circular dated 13.12.1995 which was con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of seniority in the basic cadre after the fresh circular dated 13.12.1995. He submitted that the High Court has lost sight of all these aspects and has affirmed the order of the Tribunal in the two O. As. erroneously. 10. Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, in reply, submitted that the consolidated list of promotions under the BCR Scheme (Annexure P/1 in C.A. No. 4370 of 2006) would show that Ghanshyam Dass was at serial No. 69 and Shyamlal Sachdeva was at serial No. 70, whereas Lakhpat Rai Gumbar was at serial No. 73 in the seniority list of the basic grade. He submitted that since the Central Administrative Tribunal in its order dated 07.07.1992 in O.A. No. 1455 of 1991 has held that promotions to 10% posts in Grade-IV would have to be based on seniority in the basic Cadre, Ghanshyam Dass and Shyamlal Sachdeva ought to have been promoted before Lakhpat Rai Gumbar but the chart at page 34A in C.A. No. 4370 of 2006 would show that Lakhpat Rai Gumbar was promoted on 08.01.1993 whereas Ghanshyam Dass and Shyamlal Sachdeva were promoted much later on 01.01.1997 and 01.07.1997 respectively. He vehemently submitted that Ghanshyam Dass and Shyamla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the BCR Scheme, may in the discretion of the Respondents, instead of being reverted, be considered for promotion to scale of Rs. 2000-3500 by suitable adjustments in the matter of posts by upgradation as necessary. It will be clear from the directions in the aforesaid order dated 07.07.1992 in O.A. No. 1455 of 1991 that the Government was directed to consider only the applicants in the O.A. for promotion to 10% posts in the scale Rs. 2000- 3200 (Grade-IV) on the basis of seniority in the basic cadres from the due dates with consequential benefits. The Respondents in the two Civil Appeals before us were not the applicants in O.A. No. 1455 of 1991 and there was no direction to the Government to consider the Respondents in the two appeals for promotion to Grade-IV scale on the basis of seniority in the basic cadre as per the BCR Scheme. Hence, the Respondents were not entitled to claim any promotion to Grade-IV on the basis of their seniority in the basic grade on the basis of the order dated 07.07.1992 of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1455 of 1991 as affirmed by the order dated 09.09.1993 of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 3201 of 1993. 12. In K.I. Shephard (supra) relied upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t approach the court cannot claim that such relief should have been extended to them thereby upsetting or interfering with the rights which had accrued to others. In Jagdish Lal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 538, the Appellants who were general candidates belatedly challenged the promotion of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates on the basis of the decisions in Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 715, Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan (1995) 6 SCC 684 and R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745 and this Court refused to grant the relief saying: ...this Court has repeatedly held, the delay disentitles the party to the discretionary relief under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. It is not necessary to reiterate all the catena of precedents in this behalf. Suffice it to state that the Appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long and elected to wake up when they had the impetus from Virpal Chauhan and Ajit Singh ratios. But Virpal Chauhan and Sabharwal cases, kept at rest the promotion already made by that date, and declared them as valid; they were limited to the question of future promotions given by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lakhpat Rai Gumbar had been promoted to Grade-IV scale w.e.f. 08.01.1993 because of his seniority in Grade-III scale over two the Respondents in the Civil Appeal No. 4369 of 2006, Ghanshyam Dass and others and Shyamlal Sachdeva, even though he was junior to these officers in the basic grade. Hence, Lakhpat Rai Gumber was promoted to one of the posts in Grade-IV created by the Government for the specific purpose of protecting promotions done on a different interpretation of the BCR Scheme by the Government as allowed by the Tribunal in the order dated 07.07.1992 in O.A. No. 1455 of 1991 and the Respondents in these appeals can have no claim of promotion to these supernumerary posts. Moreover, if the Respondents were in any way aggrieved by the promotion of Lakhpat Rai Gumber and others who were junior to them in the basic grade, they could have challenged their promotion in the appropriate forum, but they have not done so. 16. We further find on a reading of the circular dated 13.12.1995 of the Government that after the order dated 07.07.1992 of the Tribunal in OA. No. 1455 of 1991 was affirmed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 3201 of 1993 on 09.09.1993 the Government undertook ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
