V. Satheesh Babu v. The Chief General Manager Telecom Kerala Circle; The Chairman and Managing Director Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Shircy V.
Judgment Date: 2017-08-29
Court Decision / Holding: Interference declined; Original Petition fails and it is dismissed. The Review Application was also dismissed; no order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Original Petition dismissed; Interference declined; no costs ordered for either party.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

V. Satheesh Babu S/o Vasudevan

Respondents

The Chief General Manager Telecom Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram
The Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, New Delhi

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri S. Balachandran (Kulasekharam)
• Sri V. R. Gopu

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. I. Sheela Devi, SC, BSNL
• Sri Mathews K. Philip, SC, BSNL

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is an original petition under OP (CAT) filed in the Kerala High Court challenging two orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Ernakulam Bench) in OA 136/2013 and RA 180/00016/2016, dated 13 August 2015 and 13 October 2015 respectively. The petitioner, V. Satheesh Babu, an aged retired BSNL executive, sought (i) upgradation from E5 to E6 under Annexure A1, (ii) exemption from mandatory training, (iii) examination of records leading to Annexure A8 and setting aside that annexure, and (iv) any other relief including costs. The Tribunal, after hearing, dismissed OA 136/2013 holding that the applicant failed to complete the mandatory training required for upgradation and that similarly placed employees underwent training; consequently, no relief could be granted. The Review Application RA 180/00016/2015 was also dismissed, with the Tribunal refusing to find any error or omitted fact warranting review. The petitioner approached the High Court after a substantial delay, claiming age-related impediments to movement; the court rejected the explanation and declined to exercise jurisdiction, citing the principle against entertaining stalled petitions and endorsing the apex court’s stance on avoiding stale claims. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the Original Petition, upheld the Tribunal’s orders, and noted no order as to costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 14

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Doctrine of laches / sleeping on one's rights (Rabindra Nath v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 470)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contended for upgradation from E5 to E6 under Annexure A1 and sought exemption from the mandatory training, in addition to calling for records behind Annexure A8 and setting it aside, with a prayer for any other appropriate relief and costs.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents opposed the relief, contending the applicant did not complete the mandatory training and that similarly situated employees underwent training; no violation of Rule 14 was demonstrated and the Tribunal’s conclusions were well founded.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rabindra Nath v. Union of India	AIR 1970 SC 470	Positive	Court cites Rabindra Nath to support the principle that the court should not entertain petitions where the petitioner has slept on his rights; the delay is used to justify non-interference.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/7TH BHADRA, 1939 OP (CAT).No. 254 of 2017 (Z) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 136/2013 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 13-08-2015 ## PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------ V. SATHEESH BABU S/O.VASUDEVAN, AGED 67, RETD. EXECUTVE ENGINEER, BSNL, T.C 43/359, SGRA 49, KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009. BY ADVS.SRI.S.BALACHANDRAN (KULASEKHARAM) SRI.V.R.GOPU ## RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, NEW DELHI - 110 001. R. BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI, SC, BSNL R BY SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (CAT).No. 254 of 2017 (Z) ----------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN OA 136/2013 DATED 10.2.2013. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF REJOINDER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER DATED 12.1.2014 BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. EXHIBIT P4 REPLY TO THE REJOINDER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 23.5.2014. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF ORDER IN OA 136/2013 DATED 13.8.2015 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF REVIEW APPLICATION DATED 30.8.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 06.9.2015. EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF ORDER IN RA 180/00016/2015 IN OA 136/2013 DATED 13.10.2015 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- NIL ks. ## **P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON** ## **&** ## **SHIRCY V.,JJ.** ## **==============================** ## **O.P.(CAT)No. 254 of 2017** ## **==============================** ## **Dated this the 29[th] day of August, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.** The challenge is against Exts.P5 and P8 orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.136/2013 and R.A.No. 180/00016/2016. The O.A. was filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “i) Direct the respondents to consider the applicant for upgradation from E5 to E6 as provided for in Annexure A1. ii) Direct the respondents to consider granting exemption to the applicant from the required training. iii) Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A8 and set aside Annexure A8 iv) Any other further relief or order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of OPCAT 254/2017 2 justice; v) Award the cost of these proceedings to the applicant.” 2. The relief sought for was opposed from the part of the Department and after hearing both the sides, the Tribunal declined interference as per Ext.P5 order dated 13.08.2015, the operative portion of which reads as follows: “In view of what is stated above, the relief sought for by him is not legally sustainable. The applicant has failed to comply with the mandatory condition of undergoing the training, which he was well aware of as laid down for up-gradation from E5 to E6 and hence is not entitled to the relief sought in the O.A. There is no violation of Rule 14 as similarly placed persons underwent the mandatory training. Finding no merit in the O.A., the same is liable to be dismissed. We do so. No order as to costs.” 3. Met with the situation, the petitioner filed a Review Application, which was considered and dismissed on 13.10.2015 vide Ext.P8 order. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows: “ There is no error apparent on the face of the record nor OPCAT 254/2017 3 is it a case where certain facts the consideration of which would have bearing on the ultimate decision was omitted to be considered or that the applicant could not bring to the notice of the court, in spite of due diligence, certain facts or documents at the time of hearing and are now sought to be considered. We find no reason to review the order already passed by this Tribunal. 4. Hence the Review Application is dismissed.” 4. The petitioner has now approached this Court after more than 2 to 3 years of passing the verdict by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an 'aged person' and that he was not in a position to move about freely and hence the delay. We are not at all satisfied with the said explanation. The cause of action projected in the Original Petition has become stale. Ext.P5 order was passed way back on 13.08.2015 and Ext.P8 order in the Review Application was passed in October 2015. The jurisdiction of this Court is never to be exercised in favour of a person who is simply sleeping on OPCAT 254/2017 4 arm chair, unmindful of his rights and liberties. We find support from the Ruling rendered by the Apex Court in **Rabindra Nath v. Union of India [AIR 1970 SC 470].** Interference is declined. Original Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. **Sd/P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** **Sd/-** **SHIRCY V.** **JUDGE** **ks.** True copy P.S. To Judge OPCAT 254/2017 5 OPCAT 254/2017 6