Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs Shri Chaman Singh

Sanjay Karol, J.—The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 6.11.2008 passed in CWP No. 958 of 2007, titled as Chaman Singh vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein. Facts are not much in dispute. On 1.10.1993 appellants issued a communication conveying its decision that officiating chance may be given retrospectively with effect from 1.5.1993 for the purpose of filling up the posts of Senior Telecom Office Assistant (Sr. TOA) against the sanctioned posts in the cadre.

Accordingly, vide memo dated 23.6.1994 respondent was promoted purely on temporary and ad hoc basis to the said post. Significantly, at the time when the aforesaid policy decision was taken, the Recruitment and Promotion Rules were in existence. Subsequently after respondent successfully discharged his duties as a Senior TOA on ad hoc basis he was promoted on regular basis on 23.6.1994 on the basis of his seniority. This was so done by taking into account various factors, including the fact that similarly situated persons, namely, Shri Hira Singh, Shri Hoshiar Singh and Shri Bhumi Ram, were also given promotion.

Appellants, however, reviewed the said decision and decided to accord benefit of promotion to the respondent in the cadre of Sr. TOA on regular basis only with effect from 31.10.1996.

Learned Single Judge in terms of impugned judgment has quashed this action of the appellants.

Having considered the entire material on record, we are of the considered view that no ground for interference is made out at all in the present appeal. No illegality or perversity/ irregularity can be found with the impugned judgment.

The appellants, even at the time when the Rules were in existence took a conscious decision directing the persons to be posted as Senior TOA on officiating basis. Perhaps at that time due to heavy work, decision was taken to fill up the vacant posts on ad hoc basis. It was so done in cases of similarly situated employees, pursuant to the policy decision conveyed vide letter dated 1.10.1993. Respondent was also promoted on ad hoc basis. Thereafter, he successfully continued to discharge his duties as such, without any break and was subsequently promoted on regular basis with effect from 31.10.1996. That the candidates were required to pass the test was not a condition precedent while promoting the respondent on ad hoc basis. In fact as has been rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the authorities themselves had been recommending, according benefits of promotion to the respondent with effect from the date of his initial appointment as Senior TOA. The officiating period, on ad hoc, basis just as it was done with respect to other similarly situated persons was necessarily required to be taken into account for considering promotion on regular basis.

In our considered view the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the respondent was rightly promoted in the pay scale of Rs. 1320-2040 with effect from 1.6.1994. We find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.