Parmanand Lal v. Secretary, Deptt. of Telecommunications

1. Vide judgment dated January 11, 2013 we had allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner in the following terms:-

2. It would be relevant to note paragraphs 28 and 33 of our judgment dated January 11, 2013, which read as under:-

3. By the present petition, the respondents are seeking review of the judgment dated January 11, 2013 on the ground that a factual error has crept in paragraph 28 of said judgment.

4. It is argued by the counsel appearing for the respondents/review applicant that we had incorrectly recorded in paragraph 28 of the judgment that the ad-hoc promotion of the petitioner in the grade of Senior Time Scale was regularized on March 14, 1991. Counsel argues that vide order dated July 05, 1990 the petitioner was promoted in the grade of Senior Time Scale (DET) on ad-hoc basis, (temporarily) transferred to the post of AGM (RE), New Delhi and posted to RRCC, New Delhi and it was temporary transfer of the petitioner to the post of AGM (RE), New Delhi which was regularized vide order dated March 14, 1991 and not the ad-hoc promotion of the petitioner in the grade of Senior Time Scale. Counsel further argues paragraph 33 which forms the basis of conclusion arrived by us in the judgment dated January 11, 2013 is a sequitur to paragraph 28, which paragraph incorrectly records that the ad-hoc promotion of the petitioner in the grade of Senior Time Scale was regularized on March 14, 1991. Counsel argues that since a material error has crept in the judgment dated January 11, 2013 the same requires to be reviewed.

5. The relevant portion of the order dated March 5, 1990 issued by the respondents reads as under:- “The Chief General Manager, Northern Telecommunication Region, New Delhi is pleased to issue the following promotion, posting and Transfer orders in the grade of DEsT with immediate effect.

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│         immediate effect.                                                  │
│ Sl. No. Name of the Officer                    Present place of            │
│                                                     Posted or              │
│                                                      Postings              │
│                                                     Transfer on            │
│                                                     Promotion              │
├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 3.           P.N. Lal     AE RRCC New Delhi Offg. AGM (RE), New            │
│                                               Delhi                        │
│ 5.           Chabbi Nath AE Carr, New Delhi Offg. REM, New Delhi           │
│          Officers promoted in para-A above from Sl. No.1 to 10 are         │
│          purely on Ad-hoc basis and temporary basis. Officers promoted     │
│          will be reverted on the expiry of this local arrangement. Their   │
│          transfer will be treated as temporary transfer.”                  │
│                                                   (Emphasis Supplied)      │
│ 6.       The afore-noted order dated March 5, 1990 is a most strange and   │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

9. A reading of the judgment dated January 11, 2003 would show that the respondents had inducted the petitioner in the Indian Telegraph/Telecommunications Service Group-A in Junior Time Scale on the basis of new Recruitment Rules i.e. Indian Telegraph Group-A Service Recruitment Rules, 1992. The conclusion arrived by us in the January 11, 2013 was that the respondents had committed an error in inducting the petitioner in the Indian Telecommunications Service Group-A in Junior Time Scale and that they ought to have inducted the petitioner in said service in Junior Time Scale.

10. The fact that whether the ad-hoc promotion of the petitioner in the grade of Senior Time Scale was regularized on March 14, 1991 or not would make no difference to the afore-noted conclusion arrived by us in the judgment dated January 11, 2013 simply for the reason the respondents had inducted the junior of the petitioner namely Mr.Chavi Nath, in Indian Telegraph/Telecommunications Service Group-A in the Senior Time Scale on the basis of 1966 Recruitment Rules. Having inducted the junior of the petitioner in the Indian Telegraph/Telecommunications Service Group-A in the Senior Time Scale on the basis of 1966 Recruitment Rules it was not open to the respondents to have inducted the petitioner in the Indian Telegraph/Telecommunications Service Group-A in the Junior Time Scale on the basis of 1992 Recruitment Rules. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner is entitled to be inducted in the Indian Telegraph/Telecommunication Service Group-A in Senior Time Scale from the date an officer junior to him was inducted in said service.

11. In view thereof, the directions contained in paragraph 36 of the judgment dated January 11, 2013 needs only a slight modification, we do accordingly. Para 36 of the judgment dated January 11, 2013 shall stands replaced as under:- “36. In view of above discussion, we direct the respondents to treat the petitioner to have been inducted in the Indian Telegraph Service Group-A (now known as Indian Telecommunications Service Group-A) in the grade of Senior Time Scale on regular basis with effect from the date an officer junior to him was inducted in said service and determine the eligibility of the petitioner for further promotions on said basis. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and upon superannuation the pension with respect to the salary he would have earned in the promotional post.”

12. The review petition is disposed of in terms of paragraph 11 above.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (VEENA BIRBAL)

JUDGE JULY 25, 2013 skb