KRISHANA TIKOO v. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED

:: 3 :: T.A. No. 6402/2020

a) The petitioner, being the senior-most S.S. Trunks, is fully eligible and entitled to promotion to the post of Chief Supervisor/Grade-IV. However, despite her seniority, respondents No. 4 and 5, who are admittedly junior to her, have been placed above her in the seniority list due to malafide and extraneous considerations. The petitioner has repeatedly represented before the respondent authorities, seeking correction of the seniority list, but her claims have been ignored without proper consideration.

b) The petitioner alleges that the respondent authorities, acting arbitrarily and without application of mind, have deliberately denied her rightful placement in seniority and are attempting to harm her service career by favoring respondents No. 4 and 5 for promotion to the next higher scale. Despite several representations, the respondents have failed to rectify the anomaly in the seniority list, which has now led the petitioner to challenge the illegal and arbitrary action through this writ petition.

3

:: 4 :: T.A. No. 6402/2020

c) Through this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the seniority list, to the extent that it places respondents No. 4 and 5 above her, and requests her rightful placement in accordance with merit and seniority. She further prays for consideration for promotion to the post of Chief Supervisor/Grade-IV based on the corrected seniority position. The petition is filed on various legal and factual grounds detailed in the main writ petition.

4. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows: -

a) The respondents vehemently deny the allegations made by the petitioner and submit that she has been correctly placed in the seniority list in accordance with the applicable rules and schemes. The petitioner was appointed as a Telephone Operator under DET Srinagar (Kashmir) on 21.03.1966 and was confirmed w.e.f. 01.03.1973. She was later promoted as Supervisor Trunks (Operative), now designated as TOA (P) Grade-II, under the One-Time Bound Promotion (OTBP) Scheme w.e.f. 30.11.1983, after completing 16 years of service,

4

:: 5 :: T.A. No. 6402/2020 as per DE GMT SK Memo No. STA/30-14/OTBP/84/KW/36 dated 17.07.1984.

b) Since the petitioner was recruited in a Divisional Cadre post in DET Srinagar, her promotions under the OTBP and Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) Schemes were based on functional justification. The petitioner was never posted in a regular supervisory post, nor did she draw the special allowance meant for such posts. Under the BCR Scheme, she was promoted to TO Grade-III w.e.f. 02.11.1992, after completing 26 years of service. She was transferred from Srinagar SSA to Jammu SSA on her own request vide GMTSK No. STA/30-108/76/II/172 dated 02.07.1986 and worked there on deputation from February 1983 to July 1986 before being permanently transferred.

c) It is clarified that Grade-II and Grade-III posts are Divisional (SSA) Cadre posts, not Circle Cadre posts, as incorrectly claimed by the petitioner. Each SSA maintains a separate seniority list for TO Grade-II and III. Since the petitioner was originally recruited in Srinagar SSA, her seniority must be reckoned there. As per Rule 38(2) of the Posts and Telegraphs

5

:: 6 :: T.A. No. 6402/2020 Financial Handbook, any employee transferred at their own request must be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the new unit. Thus, the petitioner's claim to be placed above respondents No. 4 and 5 is legally unsustainable.

d) The petitioner has been correctly placed in all seniority lists, including those issued in April 1986, August 1986, and 1992. Her representations, including those made in 1996 and 1998, were duly considered and found without merit. The recommendation of the Assistant Director Telegraphs (Staff) was not binding and was rejected by the competent authority. The petitioner's claims are barred by delay and laches, and her attempt to challenge a settled seniority position at this stage is legally untenable.

e) There has been no malafide or extraneous consideration in the preparation of the seniority list. The petitioner, having been transferred on her own request, cannot claim seniority over respondents No. 4 and 5. The present writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.

6

:: 7 :: T.A. No. 6402/2020

5. It is evident that the crux of the matter revolves around the interpretation and application of Rule 38(2) of the Posts and Telegraphs Financial Handbook and the nature of the cadre under which the petitioner was appointed and subsequently promoted.

6. It is undisputed that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Telephone Operator under DET Srinagar (Kashmir) on 21.03.1966 and was confirmed w.e.f. 01.03.1973. Her promotions under the One- Time Bound Promotion (OTBP) Scheme and the Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) Scheme were based on her tenure and functional justification, specific to her Divisional Cadre appointment.

7. The primary contention raised by the petitioner pertains to her placement in the seniority list vis-à-vis respondents No. 4 and 5. However, it is crucial to note that the petitioner was transferred from Srinagar SSA to Jammu SSA upon her own request, as evidenced by GMTSK No. STA/30-108/76/II/172 dated 02.07.1986. Rule 38(2) of the Posts and Telegraphs Financial Handbook clearly stipulates that:

"...when an official is transferred at his own request but without arranging for mutual exchange, he will rank junior in the gradation lists of the new unit to all officials of that

7

:: 8 :: T.A. No. 6402/2020 unit on the date on which the transfer order is issued, including also all persons who have been approved for appointment to that grade as on that date."

8. By virtue of this rule, the petitioner, having been transferred on her own request, must be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the Jammu SSA. The nature of her transfer explicitly subjects her to the conditions of Rule 38(2), making her claim for seniority over respondents No. 4 and 5 legally untenable.

9. Furthermore, the respondents have consistently maintained that Grade-II and Grade-III posts are Divisional (SSA) Cadre posts and not Circle Cadre posts, as alleged by the petitioner. Each SSA maintains its separate seniority list, thereby reinforcing that the petitioner's seniority is to be reckoned within the Srinagar SSA, her original place of appointment.

10. The principle of delay and laches also operates against the petitioner, as her claims were considered and rejected in 1996 and 1998, and the current petition was initiated belatedly, challenging a settled seniority position.

8

:: 9 :: T.A. No. 6402/2020

11. Given these findings, it is clear that the petitioner has not established a legal or factual basis for quashing the impugned seniority lists or for claiming seniority over respondents No. 4 and 5.

12. Keeping the above points in view, TA lacks merit, and deserves to be dismissed.

13. Accordingly, TA is dismissed.

14. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.

(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)

Administrative Member Judicial Member /harshit/

9