O.P.(C.A.T.) No. 3239 of 2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Manjula Chellur
A. M. Shaffique
Judgment Date: 2012-10-04
Court Decision / Holding: The original petition is dismissed; the CAT order granting reliefs to the applicant stands upheld.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P. Raghava Poduval
Chairman and Managing Director, BSNL Corporate Office
The Chief General Manager, Kerala Telecom Circle, BSNL
The General Manager (BSNL) Telecom District, Kannur

Respondents

Union of India
Controller of Communication Accounts, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. P. Parameswaran Nair, ASG of India

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal challenges a Central Administrative Tribunal order directing the Government to grant the petitioner-tearray of promotions and related benefits on par with his juniors, after adverse remarks in his ACRs were expunged. The respondent (the applicant in the CAT) was a former Chief Accounts Officer of BSNL who had been officiating in the late 1990s and was reverted in 1997 on account of adverse ACR remarks. Those remarks were expunged by the CAT in OA No. 1386/1999 (27.03.2002) and the Supreme Court later upheld that expunction. The CAT then directed reliefs including ad hoc promotion to the grade of STS from 11.04.2000, time-bound upgradation from 01.10.2004, and related pay arrears, along with pensionary recalculations. The department assailed Annexure A12 which denied certain benefits, contending that the denial was proper and in accordance with rules. The High Court, noting the expungement of the ACRs and relying on established jurisprudence (notably Gopichand Vishnoi v. State of U.P.), held that denial of promotion based on expunged ACRs is untenable and supported the CAT’s order. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the CAT’s reliefs. The case illustrates the principle that expungement of adverse ACRs can restore eligibility for promotions and benefits, and that tribunals’ remedial orders in such contexts merit respect and enforcement.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Expungement of adverse remarks in ACRs restores eligibility for promotion and related benefits; denial of promotion based on expunged ACRs is unsustainable (as supported by Gopichand Vishnoi v. State of U.P., 2006 (9) SCC 694)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant in the CAT sought release of all service benefits on par with juniors, including promotions and arrears, and challenged Annexure A12 denying certain entitlements; he argued that once adverse remarks in ACRs were expunged, the impediment to promotion ceased to exist, entitling promotion and associated benefits.

Contentions of Respondents

The department argued that the denial of reliefs had a valid basis under applicable rules and that the CAT order, including reliefs granted, could not be sustained; it pressed that the timely corrections and pay upgradations did not automatically mandate all promotions and arrears claimed.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gopichand Vishnoi v. State of U.P.	2006 (9) SCC 694	Positive	The Supreme Court case is cited to support entitlement to promotion when ACRs are expunged.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/12TH ASWINA 1934 OP (CAT).No. 3239 of 2012 (Z) ----------------------------OA.105/2011 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 : ---------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS & IT DEPARTMENT OF TELECOM,NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF COMMUNICATION ACCOUNTS KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANT : ------------------------- 1. P.RAGHAVA PODUVAL - S/O.AMBU PODUVAL, RETIRED CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER BSNL, RESIDING AT PACKATH HOUSE, PRASADAM KANTHIL ROAD, BALLA P.O., ANANDA SHARMA (VIA) KASARAGOD -671532. 2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, B.S.N.L. CORPORATE OFFICER BARKHARUPA ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA TELECOM CIRCLE, B.S.N.L THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER (BSNL) TELECOM DISTRICT, KANNUR - 670 012. THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OPCAT.3239/2012 APPENDIX ## PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P-1 TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO.105 OF 2011 FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 21.01.2011 ANNEXURE.A12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2010 ANNEXURE.A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A. NO.1386/1999 DATED 27.03.2002. ANNEXURE.A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.31436/2002-S DATED 28.06.2007. ANNEXURE.A3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 31.05.2007 ANNEXURE.A4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 13.06.2007 ANNEXURE.A5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.06.2007 ANNEXURE.A6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 29.11.2007 ANNEXURE.A7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.05.2008 ANNEXURE.A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN M.A. NO.458/2009 IN T.A.NO.129/2008 DATED 03.08.2009. ANNEXURE.A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT IN T.A. NO.129/2008 DATED 05.10.2009. ANNEXURE.A10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH IN T.A. NO.129/2008 DATED 15.10.2009. ANNEXURE.A11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.06.2002 ANNEXURE.A11(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.11.2002 ANNEXURE.A11(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.07.2003 ANNEXURE.A13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.05.2008 OPCAT.3239/2012 ANNEXURE.A14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.03.2010 ANNEXURE.A14(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.03.2010 ANNEXURE.A14(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.06.2010 ANNEXURE.A15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.08.2010 EXT.P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN O.A.NO.105 OF 2011 DATED 22.08.2011 ANNEXURE.R1 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 18.01.2007 ANNEXURE.R2 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 20.03.2007 ANNEXURE.R3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAST PAY CERTIFICATE. ANNEXURE.R4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.05.2008 ANNEXURE.R5 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICER ORDER DATED 05.03.2009 ANNEXURE.R6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.06.2009 ANNEXURE.R7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 06.04.2010 ANNEXURE.R8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.07.2010 ANNEXURE.R9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.08.2010 ANNEXURE.R10 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 23.07.2001 AND NOTE DATED 30.01.2008 EXT.P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A. NO.105 OF 2011 DATED 21.02.2012. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL _// True Copy //_ _PS to Judge_ _aks_ MANJULA CHELLUR (CJ) & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. ---------------------------------------------------- O.P.(C.A.T.) No. 3239 of 2012 --------------------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of October, 2012 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **SHAFFIQUE, J.** This original petition is filed by the respondents 1 and 5 challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Trobunal in O.A. No. 105/2012. 2. The applicant in the O.A. is the first respondent herein. The applicant retired as Chief Accounts Officer of B.S.N.L. on 30.6.2007. He was granted officiating promotion as Chief Accounts Officer. He was reverted to the post of Senior Accounts Officer with effect from 10.1.1997. He was made to understand that the reversion was on account of some adverse remarks in his ACRs for the period from 01.04.1996 to 07.07.1996 and from 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1998. This came to be challenged in O.A. No. 1386/1999 and by order dated 27.3.2002, the adverse remarks in the ACRs were expunged by the Tribunal. Though the department challenged the said order, this Court upheld the said decision. O.P.(C.A.T.) No. 3239 of 2012 2 3. After the said judgment, the applicant approached the Department claiming all eligible promotions and consequential benefits which were illegally denied to him. The applicant was granted time-bound pay-scale up-gradation with effect from 17.7.2005. Since he was not given benefits which his juniors had obtained, he submitted Annexure A5 representation requesting the Department to release all the withheld promotions on officiating basis as CAO during the period from 11.1.97 to April, 2000 and time bound I.D.A. upgradation scale with effect from 1.10.2004 and ad hoc promotion as Chief Accounts Officer from April, 2000. Though certain benefits were granted, he was not given promotion as claimed. He approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 26594/2008 seeking for appropriate directions. The matter was transferred to CAT and numbered as T.A. No.129/2008. The Department was directed to consider the representation of the applicant which ultimately resulted in Annexure A12 order by which the Department failed to provide reliefs as claimed by the appellant. Hence O.A. came to be filed for quashing Annexure A12 and for declaring that the applicant is entitled O.P.(C.A.T.) No. 3239 of 2012 3 for all service benefits on par with his immediate juniors and for promotion and arrears of entitlements due to him. The Tribunal allowed the application and directed to set aside Annexure A12 to the extent it denied ad hoc promotion to the applicant to the grade of STS with effect from 11.4.2000 on par with his juniors and time grade promotion upgradation from 1.10.2004. The appellant was also directed to grant ad hoc promotion to the applicant to the grade of Senior Time Scale from 11.4.2000 and time bound upgradation of pay with effect from 1.10.2004 on notional basis with arrears of pay. There was a further direction that his pensionery benefits should be refixed accordingly and arrears of pension and pensionery benefits should be paid to him. 4. Ext.P3 is the order of the Tribunal which is under challenge. Heard learned Assistant Solicitor General. 5. It is not in dispute that the 1[st] respondent was reverted to the post of Senior Accounts Officer from 10.1.1997 while he was officiating as Chief Accounts Officer from 28.6.1996. This is apparently is account of the adverse remarks in his ACRs which is admittedly expunged by order of the Tribunal in O.A. O.P.(C.A.T.) No. 3239 of 2012 4 No. 1386/1999 which was upheld by this Court. Once the adverse remarks have been expunged, as held by the Supreme Court in **Gopichand Vishnoi** v. **State of U.P.** [ 2006 (9) SCC 694], the applicant was entitled to the promotion which were wrongly refused to him at the relevant point of time. The Tribunal has only relied upon the said law laid down by the Supreme Court and also the earlier view of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal. It is therefore clear that when there is a denial of promotion on account of ACR's which were found to be wrongful, the first respondent was entitled for the promotion from the respective periods when his juniors were promoted. 6. Under these circumstances, we do not find anything wrong in the order passed by the Tribunal granting the reliefs prayed for by the first respondent. 7. No specific ground is made out for interfering with the view taken by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case. O.P.(C.A.T.) No. 3239 of 2012 5 In that view of the matter, the original petition is dismissed. **MANJULA CHELLUR (CHIEF JUSTICE)** **A.M.SHAFFIQUE (JUDGE)** rka