Judgment:
Hon'ble Shri. B. Venkateswara Rao, Member (J)
The applicant in this TA was appointed on 06.04.1988 as Technician and is working as Junior Telecom Officer(Officiating) in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. The cadre of Technician was restructured as Telecom Technical Assistant in February 1998 and the applicant appeared in the JTO 35% Screening Test held on 26.04.2000 and came out successful. The contention of the applicant is that in the year 2004, the respondent issued an order No.AST/JTO-3/Ad-hoc Promotion/ 26 dated 11.08.2004 nominating him for six weeks JTO Training (Pre-basic I, Pre-basic II) followed by 10 weeks Phase I Training (as per revised syllabus) as RTTC, Chennai w.e.f. 23.08.2004. On completion of the said training, the respondent vide Order No.AST/JTO-3/Adhoc Promotion/84 dated 25.01.2005 promoted the applicant to officiate as Junior Telecom Officer in the pay scale of Rs.9850-250-14600 with immediate effect. Further, the respondent by an order No.AST/JTO-3/Ad-hoc Promotion/18 dated 22.07.2005, reverted him to their substantive cadre w.e.f. 22.07.2005, on completion of 179 days and again by the same order promoted him to officiate as JTO w.e.f. 25.07.2005 fixing his pay under FR 22 I(a)I restricted to FR 35 in the pay scale of Rs.9850-250-14600. The respondent issued such orders again, after completion of 179 days and the latest order being No.AST/JTO-3/Ad-hoc Promotion/Part/II/7 dated 20.01.2007, reverting him to his substantive cadre and again promoting him to officiate as JTO in the pay scale of Rs.9850-250-14600. Thus, as a result, his pay has been restricted to what he was receiving in the post of Telecom Technical Assistant with an ad-hoc additional payment of Rs.1000/- per month and not in the scale of pay of Rs.9850-250-14600 which is applicable to the post of Junior Telecom Officer. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent, the applicant has filed this TA seeking the following relief:-
“to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in No.AST/JTO-3/Ad-hoc Promotion/Part/II/7 dated 20.01.2007 and quash the same in so far as denial of substantive and regular promotion to the post of Junior Telecom Officer and restriction of their pay to FR-35 is concerned and direct the respondent to promote them substantively to the post of Junior Telecom Officer w.e.f. The date of initial officiating appointment in the said post and grant them pay and other allowances applicable to the post of Junior Telecom Officer w.e.f. The said date for the following among other”.
The applicant is relying upon the order passed by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in TA Nos. 84-97/2008, in which it has been held that
“10. We have heard Shri T.C.Govindaswamy, Shri V.Sajithkumar and Shri P.Chandrasekharan for applicants and Shri Mathew K.Philip, ACGSC for respondents. In our considered view, the Single Judge of the High Court in his Annexure P-23 in W.P.(C) No.28349/2005 and connected cases, considered the case in detail and held in clear terms that since the completion of the training in three phases is not a prescribed qualification in the Recruitment Rules, the respondents cannot deny petitioners therein the benefit of fixation of their pay under F.R.22(1)(a)(1) in the scale of pay applicable to the post of Junior Telecom Officer on the ground that they have not cleared the three phases of training. It was further held that the temporary nature of the posts, the non-regularisation of the posts etc are matters irrelevant as far as fixation of pay is concerned. The High Court vide judgment in W.A.No.1735/2006 and connected cases, set aside the aforesaid judgment of the Learned Single Judge only for the reason that the applicants have not been given any notice before their pay was fixed under FR 35 causing reduction in their emoluments. As held by the single judgment of the High Court (supra) what is relevant in the matter of fixation of pay is whether the applicants are performing duties attached to the posts of JTOs having higher responsibilities. There is no dispute in this regard. Hence these TAs succeed.
Consequently, we set aside the Annexure P25 and P26 orders dated 20.11.2007 and 4.12.2007 respectively. Respondents are directed not to recover the pay and allowances already paid to the applicants in the scale of pay of JTO. They are further directed to continue to pay to the applicants pay and allowances due to them in the scale of pay of JTO as per Rule 22(1)(a)(1) of Fundamental Rules.
11. With the aforesaid directions, these TAs are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs”.
The applicant is also relying upon the orders of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.1282/2010 dated 26.08.2010, in which the Bench has allowed the OA in the similar lines of the Ernakulam Bench. The relevant portion of the order is quoted below:-
“4. For parity of reasons, we allow present Original Application in terms of the decision of Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of M.V.Salilakumar and Ors. Vs. The Chairman and Managing Director and Ors.(Supra). However, we make it absolutely clear that the fate of the applicants herein would be dependent upon the writs filed b y the respondents in Kerala High Court. That being so, if the writs are allowed, the respondents may withdraw the benefits given to the applicants and, therefore, there will be no need for the respondents to file separate writ in this case”.
2. The respondent has entered appearance and has filed the reply statement.
3. Heard both sides and perused the records.
4. The applicant in this TA is similarly situated and is eligible for the relief claimed. Therefore, in terms of orders in TA Nos.84-97/2008 and OA 1282/2010 of the Ernakulam Bench and Principal Bench of this Tribunal respectively, we allow the present TA also. No order as to costs.