Gauhati High Court
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Bsnl vs Jogeswar Patwari And 12 Ors on 18 January, 2021
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010011532015
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2052/2015
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED BSNL
REP. THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, ASSAM TELECOM CIRCLE,
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, PANBAZAR, GHY- 1.
VERSUS
JOGESWAR PATWARI and 12 ORS
R/O- FATASIL AMBARI, SWAHID KUMUD GOGOI PATH, GHY- 25.
2:MAHESH CHANDRA DAS
VILL. and P.O.- AZARA
THAKURIA PARA
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781017.
3:JOGENDRA NATH GOSWAMI
P.O.- BEZARA
VILL.- KHEHENIPARA
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM.
4:SASHADHAR SARMA
NARIKALBARI
CHACHAL BYELANE 4
HOUSE NO. 4
GHY- 24
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM.
5:RAMESH CH. DAWKA
VILL.- GARPOT
P.O.- BARANGHATI
Page No.# 2/6
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM.
6:BASUDEV BHATTACHARJEE
BISHNU RABHA PATH
BYELANE- 1
BHASKAR NAGAR
GHY- 18.
7:MAHENDRA CHANDRA KALITA
VILL.- AMODPUR
P.O.- RAMPUR
VIA- BIJOY NAGAR
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781023.
8:SURENDRA CHANDRA KALITA
HENGRABARI
DR. JAKIR HUSSAIN PATH
NEAR NABAJYOTI CLUB
GUWAHATI
KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781036.
9:RAM CHANDRA DEKA
BIRUBARI
SHANKARPUR
P.O.- GOPINATH NAGAR
GUWAHATI
KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781016.
10:GOLAP CHANDRA KALITA
MATHURANAGAR
SHANTIPUR HILL SIDE
GUWAHATI
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781006.
11:BHAGABAN CH. THAKURIA
JAPARIGOOG
KALYAN MANDAKINI PATH
GUWAHATI
DIST.- KAMRUP
Page No.# 3/6
ASSAM
PIN- 781006.
12:RAJANI KANTA SARMA
RUPNAGAR
NAVODAYA PATH
GUWAHATI
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781032.
13:GOPAL CH. DEKA
VILL.- MAIHATI
P.O.- SANESWAR RANGIA
KAMRUP
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.B C PATHAK
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.P P BARUAHR-1to5 and 7to13
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
18.01.2021
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, CJ)
Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Baruah, learned
counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents.
This is a writ petition filed by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. against order dated
11.09.2012 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench by which the claim
petition of the applicants, namely, Sri Jogeswar Patowari, Sri Mahesh Chandra Das, Sri
Jogendra Nath Goswami, Sri Sashadhar Sarma, Sri Ramesh Ch. Dawka, Sri Basudev
Bhattacharjee, Sri Mahendra Chandra Kalita, Sri Surendra Chandra Kalita, Sri Ram Chandra
Deka, Shri Golap Chandra Kalita, Sri Bhagaban Ch. Thakuria, Sri Rajani Kanta Sarma and Sri
Gopal Ch. Deka (present respondents) was allowed and it was held that the applicants are
Page No.# 4/6
entitled to "Grade-IV promotion (10% BCR quota)" from the date on which their juniors were
promoted and are entitled to get financial benefits as due and admissible. Ex- consequenti,
pension of the applicants needs to be revised. Order was also passed to revise the pension of
the applicants. The respondents (i.e. the petitioners before this Court) were further directed
to make a fresh computation of the salary and other consequential benefits available to the
applicant in the light of the aforesaid direction and pension be revised accordingly. This order
has been challenged by the respondent, i.e. petitioner herein.
The admitted fact of this case is that the present applicants were senior Telegraph
Operators, Gr.C posts at the time of their superannuation from service on 29.02.2004,
31.03.2006, 31.08.2004, 31.12.2006, 30.06.2003, 30.11.2005, 31.12.2006, 29.02.2004,
31.08.2003, 30.04.2007, 30.04.2004, 31.01.2005 and 30.09.2003 respectively. While the
respondents/applicants were in service, the promotion of the applicants from Grade-III to
Grade-IV was delayed due to the non-constitution of Departmental Promotion Committee in
time and as stated above, they ultimately reached the age of superannuation.
Meanwhile, similarly situated persons who were denied promotion in time, had
approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated
11.09.2012 in OA No.262/2012 held that the applicants are entitled to Grade-IV promotion
(10% BCR quota). Since the position of the present respondents was similar and the learned
counsel for Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. has also admitted that the facts of the case are similar
and that earlier an order has been passed in favour of the applicants, the Tribunal disposed of
the original application of the respondent by passing the following order:
"XXXXXXXXXX
7. Having regard to the facts and respectfully following the precedents, we direct
the respondents to grant Grade IV promotion (10% BCR scheme) to the applicants
from the date on which their juniors were promoted. They are also entitled to get
financial benefits as due and admissible. Respondents are further directed to revise
the pensionary benefits and to make a fresh computation of salary and other
consequential benefits available to the applicants in the light of the judgment dated
26th March, 2012 passed in the case of Mahesh Chandra Kalita (supra). This should be
Page No.# 5/6
done within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of this order.
XXXXXXXXXX"
Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner-Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd. has pointed out the illegalities in the order dated 11.09.2012 but then he also
fairly submits that since the order dated 11.09.2012 is based on an earlier order of the
Tribunal dated 26.03.2012 in OA Nos.297/2010 and 298/2010 and since that order was never
challenged before this Court, he has no objection if the benefit is also granted to the present
respondents/applicants but that may not close the case of the petitioner forever on the legal
submissions which in general have been advanced before this Court.
It is also an admitted fact that the juniors to the respondents were promoted and
more importantly other similarly situated persons who had filed original application before the
Tribunal, who were granted a similar relief by the Tribunal vide order dated 26.03.2012 and
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. later complying with the order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal granted promotion to all such persons along with the monetary relief. Mr. K. N.
Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that since the earlier order
was never challenged by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., they would be implementing the present
order of the Central Administrative Tribunal as well, but only prays that this Court may keep
the question of law open.
We make it clear that presently above all there is a special equity in favour of the
petitioner, in as much as all the other similarly situated employees are getting the benefit of
promotion from Grade-III to Grade-IV, it is not just to single out the petitioner and deny him
the same benefits. Since we dispose of the present writ petition on no other ground but on
fair admission of the counsels that similarly placed employees are getting the same benefit
needless to say the legal issue raised by the petitioner has not been touched.
Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also made a
submission that although the admitted fact is that the respondents did not get the promotion
at the time when their juniors were promoted and subsequent to their retirement they were
given an "extra increment". While calculating the pensionary and other benefits to the
petitioner in the light of the order of the Tribunal, the authority shall also consider the extra
Page No.# 6/6
increment given to the respondents post their retirement, while recalculating their pension.
This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly in terms of the above discussion.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
