At, Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. NEKKHOMANG NEIHSIAL
By, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
For the Applicant: S.K. Sikidar, Advocate. For the Respondents: B. Pathak, Advocate.
1. This O.A. has been filed by the applicant asking for the following reliefs:-
“8.a) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant regular pension and to disburse all the pesionary benefit as early as possible and set aside the impugned letter dated 14.08.2018.
8.b) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant Time Bound IDA Scale upgradation as per Executive Promotion Policy for Group B level Officers which were not granted because of the court cases.
8.c) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may further be pleased to grant any further or other relief that it may deem fit and proper in the interest of natural justice.
2. The respondent authorities filed their written statement on 08.05.2019.
3. After giving reasonable opportunities to both the parties, the case was finally heard on 08.04.2021 and reserved for orders with liberty given to both the parties to file their written argument within 15 days. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed their written argument on 19.04.2021 and applicant filed his written argument on 21.04.2021.
4. Facts of the case were that the applicant was working as Sub-Divisional Engineer in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. He retired from service on superannuation in April 2018. During service period, the applicant was involved in a criminal case. As per the submission made by Sri S.K. Sikidar, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, the applicant has since been acquitted by lower court and the respondent authorities though they stated their intention to file appeal in the Hon’ble High Court has not been done anything so far. Accordingly, whatever has been denied to him during the pendency of the criminal case including Time Bound Promotion should be reviewed and granted to him. I have gone through the papers submitted by both the parties. The applicant is basically asking for granting of Time Bound Promotion to E-4 and revision of his DCRG. On the other hand, the respondent authorities submitted that whatever has been due to him, has been granted and payments have been released to the applicant. They also specifically stated that payment of all legitimate dues to the applicant have been made and credited to the account of the applicant. For the same reason, O.A. has become infructuous and liable to be dismissed. They also pointed out that the applicant sought for plural remedies, -- one for grant of DCRG etc. and the other grant of Time Bound promotion. These two remedies are distinct and not at all connected with the other as consequential benefits. As such, the O.A. itself is vitiated by illegality and hit by the provisions of Rule 10 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and liable to be dismissed. They also have highlighted that the applicant relied on one letter bearing No.E-352/TB-IDA/Pt.VIII/2019-20/02 dated 30.11.2019 which is not part of the pleadings and without being supplied to the BSNL. But they pointed out that as per this letter which has been subsequently made a part of the pleadings by the learned counsel for the applicant clearly indicated the reason for not granting E3 and E4 in the scheme of Time Bound promotion and it was not granted to the applicant due to improper ACR and not due to pendency of criminal case against the applicant.
5. I have considered this. It is clear from this letter that the applicant was not denied Time Bound promotion of E3/E4 not because of the pending criminal case against him as claim by him and make submission that after having been acquitted by the criminal cour
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
t, the same should be granted to him now. I therefore, found that the claim of the applicant is not factually correct. He reason for not granting of Time Bound promotion is not due to the pendency of criminal case but due to lack of appropriate ACR for such Time Bound promotion. I therefore, find that there is no merit in the O.A. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed. 6. No order as to costs.