Medini C vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 21 September, 2021


Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Supreme Court of India

Medini C vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 21 September, 2021

Author: Hon’Ble Dr. Chandrachud

Bench: Hon’Ble Dr. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath, B.V. Nagarathna

                                                      1
                                                                      NON-REPORTABLE
                                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                     CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5811-5814/2021
                              (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NOS.26435-26438/2019)


                         MEDINI. C & ORS. ETC. ETC.             ……..APPELLANT(S)
                                                          VS.
                         BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED
                         & ORS. ETC. ETC.                       …...RESPONDENT(S)
                                                   WITH
                                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.5815-5816/2021
                                 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.14959-60/2021
                                          @ DIARY NO.41354/2019)


                         B.H. SREELA                            ……..APPELLANT(S)
                                                          VS.


                         BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)


                                                 J U D G M E N T

NAGARATHNA J.

Delay in filing the Special Leave Petition Diary

No.41354/2019 is condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. These appeals by special leave have been filed by

the appellants against the judgment and order dated
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Sanjay Kumar
Date: 2021.09.21
15:43:37 IST
07.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Kerala in R.P.
Reason:

No.155/2018 filed in W.P.(C) No.29029/2010; R.P.

No.156/2018 in O.P.(CAT) No.20/2010; and order dated

10.10.2019 in W.P.(C) No.29029/2010 and O.P.(CAT)
2
No.20/2020; and order dated 07.08.2018 in R.P.

No.145/2018 in O.P.(CAT) No.21 of 2010. By the said

order dated 07.08.2018, the High Court allowed the

review petitions, restored the original petitions and

the writ petition on the file of the High Court and

directed the parties to maintain status quo till the

disposal of the original petitions. On restoration, by

order dated 10.10.2019, the High Court dismissed the

Original and Transferred Applications, set aside the

order of the Tribunal and allowed the Original

Petitions. Hence these appeals.

4. These appeals have a chequered history and

therefore only the relevant facts are narrated in a

nutshell.

5. In Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No.26435/2019, appellant

nos.1 and 2 viz., Medini C and B. Geetha Devi were

appointed as Hindi Translators and petitioner no.3

viz., Sobhana Kumari was appointed as a Telecom Office

Assistant in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short,

‘BSNL’ for the sake of convenience). The appellant

viz., C. Mridula in Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)

No.26436/2019 was appointed as a Telecom Office

Assistant. Their appointments were made in the years

1988-1989. The appellants in the civil appeal @ SLP(C)

No.26435/2019 were promoted as Assistant Director

(Official Language) (‘OL’ for short) on ad hoc basis

during the years 1993-1995 and the appellant in the
3
civil appeal @ SLP(C) No.26436/2019 was promoted to

General Central Service Group as Assistant Director

(OL) on officiating basis during the year 2000.

6. On 24.12.2002, Assistant Director (Official

Language) Recruitment Rules, 2002 (for short, the ‘2002

Rules’) were notified. The said Rules superseded all

previous instructions on the subject and came into

effect immediately. Under the said Rules, as a “one-

time measure”, all vacancies in the grade of Assistant

Director (OL) on officiating basis were to be filled up

by Senior Hindi Translators/Junior Hindi Translators

and Group C officials who were to be given ad hoc

promotions to the grade of Assistant Director (OL) on

officiating basis. The same was by promotion on

seniority-cum-fitness basis as was the procedure

followed for the above officials who had been

officiating as Assistant Director (OL). A Corrigendum

dated 01.10.2003 was issued revising eligibility

criteria. Another Corrigendum was issued on 13.10.2003

for removing restriction of pay under FR-35 as per the

2002 Rules.

7. Subsequently, Rajabhasha Adhikari Recruitment

Rules 2005 were notified on 05.08.2005 (for short, the

‘2005 Rules’). These Rules were in supersession of 2002

Rules. However, it was notified that the local

officiating arrangements/promotions on ad hoc basis

which had already been made may not be disturbed till
4
regular incumbents to such posts become available. The

said Rules came into force with immediate effect.

8. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent-BSNL

in promoting the appellants on regular basis, the

appellants filed Writ Petitions bearing W.P. No.28185

of 2005 and WP No.29553 of 2005 before the Kerala High

Court. The aforesaid writ petitions were transferred to

the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, the

‘Tribunal’) and were registered as Transfer Application

Nos.44 and 46 of 2008. On 08.04.2010, the Tribunal

allowed the Transfer Applications and directed the

appellants to be promoted in accordance with the 2002

Rules, against which O.P. (CAT) No.20/2010 and W.P.

No.29029/2010 were filed by the respondent No.1-BSNL.

Their contention before the High Court was that the

2002 Rules were never in operation at any point of time

and reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court

in BSNL vs. Mishri Lal & Ors. – (2011) 14 SCC 739

(Mishri Lal) for the same. But the High Court found

that there was no plea raised that the 2002 Rules had

never come into force before the Tribunal and it was

taken up first time before the High Court. It was found

that the 2002 Rules were in fact given effect to and

plea to the contrary was without any merit. The High

Court dismissed the aforesaid matters by order dated

04.11.2011.

5

9. Being aggrieved, the respondent – BSNL filed

special leave petition being SLP(C) No.8575/2012. This

Court dismissed the said special leave petition along

with SLP(C) No.8879/2012. The respondent – BSNL filed

Review Petition (C) No.2451/2017 in SLP(C) No.8665/2017

and Review Petition (C) No.2452/2017 in SLP(C)

No.8575/2012. The said review petitions were also

dismissed by this Court on 16.11.2017.

10. Thereafter, Contempt Petition (C) No.151/2017 in

TA Nos.44 and 46 of 2008 were filed before the Tribunal

in which proceedings the Chief General Manager, BSNL

was directed to appear before the Tribunal on

12.03.2018. At that stage, Review Petition No.155 and

156 of 2018 were filed in W.P. No.29029/2010 and OP

(CAT) No.20/2010 respectively before the High Court

seeking review of its judgment and order dated

04.11.2011 with a delay of 2225 days. It is pertinent

to note that the said review petitions were filed after

the dismissal of the special leave petitions and the

review petitions filed against the order passed in the

special leave petitions were dismissed by this Court.

Delay of 2225 days was condoned by the High Court

against which SLP(C) Nos.8009-8010/2010 were filed

which were also dismissed by this Court vide order

dated 06.04.2018.

11. Thereafter the High Court allowed the R.P.

Nos.145, 155 and 156 of 2018 and other connected
6
matters recalling the judgment and order in OP(CAT)

Nos.20, 21, 142 of 2010 and WP No.29029/2010 dated

04.11.2011 and restored the said matters on the file of

the High Court vide order dated 07.08.2018. Further, on

restoration of the aforesaid matters, the High Court by

its order dated 10.10.2019 allowed the same. Hence,

these appeals have been preferred before this Court.

12. During the pendency of these appeals before this

Court, the appellants were reverted to the post of

Junior Hindi Translators, the post to which they had

joined earlier with effect from 16.05.2018.

13. Sri R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the appellants, drew our attention to the orders

passed in the earlier proceedings that had taken place

in these cases and contended that the High Court was

not right in concluding that there was an error

apparent on the face of the record and therefore, the

earlier order dated 04.11.2011 passed by it had to be

reviewed and recalled. It was urged that the High Court

was not correct in holding that it had made an apparent

error in coming to the conclusion that the recruitment

Rules 2002 was in operation by a misreading paragraph 9

of the judgment rendered by this Court in Mishri Lal;

that the said judgment did not declare any law as to

whether the recruitment Rules were in operation or not.

Though emphasis was made by the second appellant that

the 2002 Rules were never in operation, the High Court
7
was not right in upholding the contention of the review

petitioners (respondents herein). The High Court,

though at one point found that, there was no specific

statement or a declaration of law on the operation or

otherwise the recruitment Rules 2002, at the same time

found that this Court had given a finding in Mishri

Lal to the effect that the said Rules were never in

operation at any point of time. It was contended that

on a misreading of the judgment of this Court in

Mishri Lal, the High Court allowed the review petitions

and recalled the judgment dated 04.11.2011 passed in

OP(CAT) Nos.20, 21 & 142 of 2010 and WP(C) No.29029 of

2010 and restored those matters on the file of the High

Court. It was submitted that the High Court had

misapplied Mishri Lal to the facts of these cases as

the said judgment was not applicable to the instant

cases having regard to the distinctive factual matrix

in these cases. It was contended that the High Court

erroneously reversed the earlier order passed by it on

04.11.2011, subsequent to the dismissal of the special

leave petitions filed earlier against the orginal order

as well as the review petitions filed against the

dismissal of the special leave petitions.

14. It was further contended that the 2002 Rules were

acted upon in the instant cases and the impugned order

has proceeded on an erroneous premise that it was not

implemented as the grant of enhanced pay scales was not
8
sufficient per se to establish that the said Rules have

been acted upon.

15. Sri Basant, learned Senior Counsel for the

appellants, submitted that the High Court failed to

appreciate the applicability/ enforceability of the

2002 Rules, as there was no controversy about the same.

It was further submitted that the vacancies which arose

when the 2002 Rules were in operation and the persons

drawing salary based on the earlier Rules had a vested

right when the 2005 Rules were in force. In sum and

substance, it was contended that the High Court was not

right in reviewing its judgment dated 04.11.2011.

16. In elaboration of the aforesaid submission, it was

reiterated that the 2002 Rules had been acted upon and

enhanced pay scale was also credited. As the vacancies

had arisen prior to the 2002 Rules being enforced, the

promotions would be governed by the said Rules and

appellants would had acquired a vested right when the

said Rules were in force as the vacancies had arisen by

then. Further, our attention was drawn to Corrigendum

dated 01.10.2003 under which the respondent(s) revised

eligibility criteria of Mridula C, with effect from

30.12.2002 on the basis of the 2002 Rules. Another

corrigendum dated 13.10.2003 was issued removing the

“restriction of pay under FR-35” given in the memos of

local officiating promotion with effect from 30.12.2002
9
as per revised eligibility conditions as per the 2002

Rules.

17. It was lastly contended that the respondent(s)

having implemented the 2002 Rules it could now not be

contended that the rules were never given effect to nor

implemented. In fact, the 2002 rules were in

supersession of the earlier rules and therefore,

between 2002 and 2005 there could not have been a

vacuum, was the submission.

18. Sri V. Chitambaresh, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the other appellant(s), made similar

submissions as recorded above.

19. Per contra, Sri R. D. Agrawala, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the respondents, at the outset,

placed strong reliance on the impugned judgment being

in accordance with the ratio of the judgment of this

Court in Mishri Lal and therefore, the High Court was

justified in reviewing its earlier order. It was

contended that in Mishri Lal, it has been categorically

held that the 2002 Rules were never in operation at any

point of time; the same was fortified by the fact that

no regular appointment was made under the said Rules.

It was urged that the High Court was justified in

reviewing its earlier order and hence, there is no

merit in these appeals.

10

20. Having regard to the contentions raised by the

respective counsel, the crux of the matter in these

appeals is, whether, the 2002 Rules were given effect

to by the respondents vis-a-vis the appellants herein

or not.

21. There can be no cavil that these appellants were

appointed as Hindi Translators and Telecom Office

Assistants. The appellant viz., C. Mridula was promoted

to General Central Service Group as Assistant Director

(OL) on officiating basis while the appellants viz.,

Medini C., B. Geetha Devi and Sobhana Kumari were

promoted to the post of Assistant Director (OL) on ad

hoc basis. This was prior to the enforcement of the

2002 Rules.

22. On 24.12.2002, the respondent(s) issued a

notification stating that the 2002 Rules would

supersede all instructions on the subject including the

instructions contained in DOT’s Circular No.372-1/94-

STG-III dated 28.04.1994 regarding filling up of the

posts of Hindi Officers [Assistant Director (OL)] in

field units on local officiating basis. That wherever

local officiating arrangements/ad hoc promotions were

required, they were to be made in accordance with the

provisions of the 2002 Rules. Further local officiating

arrangements/promotions on ad hoc basis having already

been made were not be disturbed until further orders.
11

23. A reading of the 2002 Rules would indicate that

the said Rules came into force with immediate effect

i.e. on 24.12.2002. Rule 10(iii) and (iv) of the said

Rules are relevant and they read as under :

“10. Initial Constitution.

(i) …….

(ii) …..

           (iii)    There    are     many     Sr.    Hindi
           Translators/Jr.    Hindi    Translators     and

Group ‘C’ officials who have been given ad
hoc promotions to the grade of AD (OL) in
field formations of BSNL. In order to
avoid legal and administrative
complications as a one time measure, it is
provided that all the vacancies in the
grade of AD (OL) in the first year of
recruitment, irrespective of vacancies
earmarked for promotional quota or direct
quota, shall be filled up by promotion on
seniority-cum-fitness basis, by following
due procedures, amongst those officials
who have been officiating as AD(OL) in
BSNL subject to their fulfilling the basis
qualifications and experiences as
prescribed in column 12 of the Schedule
annexed to these Rules.

(iv) These rules will be subject to review
after a period of three recruitment years.

A reading of the same would indicate that it was

recognised that there were many promotions made on ad

hoc basis in the grade of Assistant Director (OL), even

prior to the enforcement of the 2002 Rules. In order to

avoid legal and administrative complications as a “one

time measure” which was more in the nature of a

transitional measure, the vacancies were to be filled

by promotions on seniority-cum-fitness basis from
12
amongst those officials who had been officiating as

Assistant Director (OL) in BSNL subject to their

fulfilling the basic qualifications and experiences as

prescribed in column 12 of the Schedule annexed to the

2002 Rules. The Rules of course were subject to review

after a period of three years.

24. Consequently, a corrigendum was issued on by the

respondent(s) removing the clause “restriction of pay

under FR-35” as given in the memos of local officiating

promotion when the appellants in the first appeal viz.,

Medini C., B. Geetha Devi and Sobhana Kumari were

promoted to the post of Assistant Director (OL) on ad

hoc basis with effect from the dates notified against

each of them as per the revised eligibility conditions

given in the Recruitment Rules.

25. In respect of the following persons including

appellant Mridula C, the eligible dates for removal of

restriction under FR-35 were as under :

Sr. No. Name of Officiating AD(OL) Eligible date
S/Sri/Smt. for removal of
restriction
under FR-35

1. Jobi Joseph 30.12.2002

2. Prasanna Kumari Amma 04.01.2003

3. Mridula C 30.12.2002

4. Sreekumar 30.12.2002

26. A specific reference was made to the revised

eligibility conditions of the 2002 Rules while issuing
13
the aforesaid corrigendum. Another corrigendum was

issued on 13.10.2003 in respect of Smt. Mridula C. Her

pay scale was also regularised. The above were issued

subsequent to the enforcement of the 2002 Rules. It is

observed that when the restriction of officiating pay

under FR-35 was removed, it would indicate that the

respondent in substance regularised the promotions of

the appellants herein, by issuance of the

Corrigendum(s) referred to above as till then they were

receiving pay on officiating basis. Further the removal

of such restriction under FR-35 has the effect of

recognising the appointment in substantive officiating

capacity subject to fulfilment of eligibility

conditions as prescribed in the relevant recruitment

Rules and carrying on higher duties and

responsibilities. For immediate reference FR-35 is

extracted as under :

“FR-35. The Central Government may fix the
pay of an officiating Government servant
at an amount less than that admissible
under these rules”.

The effect of removal of the restriction of

officiating pay under FR-35 implied that there was

regular cadre promotion made as the employees

became due for promotion and fell within the zone

of consideration and fulfilled all qualifications

prescribed for promotion.

14

27. As per communication dated 05.08.2005, the

respondent – BSNL re-designated the post of Assistant

Director (OL) as “Rajbhasha Adhikari”. Further it is

stated that the local officiating

arrangements/promotions on ad hoc basis that have

already been made may not be disturbed till the regular

incumbents to such posts become available in accordance

with the recruitment rules.

28. The 2005 Rules were issued in supersession of all

instructions issued earlier. However, it was

categorically stated that “the local officiating

arrangements/promotions on ad hoc basis” that had

already been made were not be disturbed till the

regular incumbents to such posts available in

accordance with recruitment rules. More pertinently

clause 10 of the 2005 Rules reads as under :

“10. Power to Relax. – Where the BSNL is of
opinion that it is necessary or expedient so
to do it may by order for reasons to be
recorded in writing and with the approval of
Management Committee or BSNL relax any of the
provisions of these Rules in respect of any
class or category or persons.”

Rule 11 of the 2005 Rules reads as under :

“11. Initial Constitution.

(i) All officials holding the post of
Assistant Director (Official Language) on
regular basis in erstwhile DOT/DTS/DTO before
commencement of these Rules and those who have
been absorbed in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd
shall be deemed to have been appointed as
15
Assistant Director (Official Language) with
the same seniority.

(ii) The continuous regular service of
officials referred to in the sub-rule 10(i)
above before the commencement of these rules
shall count for the purpose of probation,
qualifying service for promotion, confirmation
and pension.

29. It is not the case of the respondent-BSNL that the

appellants were not eligible to be promoted on ad hoc

basis and nor were they lacking in requisite

qualification and merit when they were so promoted even

prior to the 2002 Rules were enforced.

30. It is in the above scenario that the Tribunal by

its order passed in TA No.44/2008 and connected matters

observed that the 2002 Rules remained in force and were

implemented for more than three years till the

“Rajbhasha Adhikari Recruitment Rules, 2005” was issued

in supersession of all the relevant Recruitment Rules

in force; that the appointment/promotion of the

employees are to be based on the existing rules and

hence the directions for promotions were given under

the 2002 Rules. Consequently, a direction was issued

to the respondent – BSNL to promote the eligible

candidates as Assistant Director (OL) against the

vacancies which had arisen prior to the promulgation of

the 2005 Rules. They were also to be re-designated as

Rajabhasha Adhikari from 2005.

16

31. The High Court vide its judgment dated 04.11.2011

held that in Mishri Lal, this Court had made

observations with regard to the implementation of the

2002 Rules vis-a-vis the facts of the said case and the

said observations did not apply to the instant cases.

The High Court held in favour of the appellants herein

by observing that there were 120 vacancies of Assistant

Director (OL) when the 2002 Rules were in force and the

appointing authority had promoted in terms of the

prevailing Rules and the 2005 Rules did not take away

the vested right of the appellants herein as the 2005

Rules were prospective in operation. Citing the

decision of this Court in Y.V. Rangaiah & Ors. vs. J.

Sreenivasa Rao – AIR 1983 SC 852, it was observed that

the posts which fell vacant prior to the amended

rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the

new rules. Consequently, all the original petitions

and writ petition filed by the respondents herein were

dismissed by the High Court vide judgment dated

04.11.2011.

32. As noted above, the aforesaid judgment was

assailed before this Court and the special leave

petitions were dismissed by order dated 23.03.2017. The

review petitions filed by the respondents herein were

also dismissed by this Court vide order dated

16.11.2017. Thereafter, contempt petition was filed

before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by the
17
appellants herein and by order dated 06.02.2018, the

Tribunal directed the Chief General Manager of the

respondent to appear in person and “explain the reasons

for not complying with the earlier order of the

Tribunal”. It is at that stage that the review

petitions were filed by the respondents before the High

Court which have been allowed and which is the subject

matter of controversy in the present appeals.

33. We have in detail narrated the facts and events

that have occurred in these cases and also referred to

the Rules of 2002 and 2005 and we have succinctly noted

the earlier order dated 04.011.2011 passed by the High

Court which were in favour of the appellants herein.

The reason as to why the earlier order of the High

Court was reviewed and recalled by the impugned

judgment is mainly on the basis of the judgment of this

Court in Mishri Lal in respect of which the High Court

in the impugned judgment has stated that the 2002 Rules

were not given effect to and hence the appellants had

no right to be regularised subsequent to their ad hoc

promotions.

34. Hence, we shall consider the judgment of this

Court in Mishri Lal. In Mishri Lal respondent nos.1

to 9 therein assailed the 2005 Rules by which the writ

petitioners were told to appear in the Limited Internal

Competitive Examination for promotion to the post of

Rajbhasha Adhikari [AD (OL)]. The said Rules were
18
quashed by the Allahabad High Court at the preliminary

stage of admission, without service of notice to the

respondent BSNL. In paragraphs 9 of Mishri Lal, this

Court noted that there were some objections to the

Recruitment Rules of 2002 as “allegedly” these rules

were never in operation at any point of time.

Thereafter, the revised 2005 Rules were formulated and

issued on 05.08.2005 whereby 120 posts were classified

as executive with the nomenclature of Rajbhasha

Adhikari. While the educational qualifications remained

the same as before, under the 2005 Rules, the entire

cadre had to be filled by a limited internal

competitive examination. These Rules had been struck

down by the Allahabad High Court.

35. In paragraph 10 of Mishri Lal, it is noted that

the respondents therein were never regularly promoted

as Hindi Officer at any point of time. They were

appointed on the basis of administrative instructions

dated 28.04.1994, purely on officiating basis under the

powers delegated to the Heads of Telecom Circles. They

were never regular appointees and hence no vested

rights for promotion to the post of Hindi Officer under

the 2002 Rules inhered in them. Further, this Court

observed that when the 2005 Rules were formulated 120

posts were classified as executive and the power of

recruitment was changed and such posts were to be

filled up by internal competitive examination, the said
19
posts could not be filled up by promotion by the

persons working on officiating basis.

36. Thus, the aforesaid facts in Mishri Lal and on a

consideration of the reasoning of the judgment(s) of

the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, this Court

held in favour of the respondents herein by setting

aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court.

37. In our view the judgment in Mishri Lal cannot be

applied to the present case as the facts that obtained

in the said case are distinct. In Mishri Lal it was

noted that the respondents therein were never regularly

promoted as Hindi Officers at any point of time either

under the 1984 Rules nor under the 2002 Rules

subsequently. They were appointed purely on the local

officiating basis under the administrative instructions

dated 28.4.1994. Therefore, this Court held that the

respondents in the said case were never regular

appointees and hence had no vested right for promotion

to the post of Hindi Officer under the 2002 Rules which

were not given effect to vis-a-vis the respondents

therein.

38. But in the instant case the facts are totally

distinct inasmuch as these appellants were

provisionally promoted while in the Telecom Department

as Assistant Director (OL) as early as on 15.05.1994

but they were not regularised and hence they approached
20
the Tribunal seeking an order of regularisation. In

fact, Rule 10(3) of 2002 Rules categorically stated

that as a “one time measure” all the vacancies in the

grade of Assistant Director (OL) in the first year of

promotional quota or direct vacancies had to be filled

by direct quota by following due procedure from amongst

the officials who had been officiating as Assistant

Director (OL) in the respondent-BSNL subject to their

filling the basic qualifications and experience as

prescribed. Despite promulgation of the 2002 Rules no

order for regularisation of promotion was issued.

Hence, the appellants herein approached the High Court

for promotion. It is during the said period, the 2005

Rules were issued but by then the appellants herein had

already enforced their vested rights regarding their

regularisation in their respective posts as per the

2002 Rules on the bases of one time measure that was

envisaged under the said Rules. The Tribunal therefore

granted relief to them and the High Court by order

dated 04.11.2011 dismissed the writ petitions filed by

the respondent-BSNL was sustained by this Court in the

special leave petitions as well as the review petitions

filed by the respondent-BSNL.

39. When such being the factual and legal position, we

find that the High Court has misread the ratio of the

judgment of this Court in Mishri Lal and has applied it

to the case of the appellants herein in a straight-
21
jacket manner without being mindful of the aforesaid

crucial aspects of the case. It may be that in the

region of Uttar Pradesh, the 2002 Rules may not have

been given effect to as has been noted in Mishri Lal

but that is not the case insofar as the appellants who

are working in the Kerala region are concerned. This is

because subsequent to the orders of promotions on ad

hoc or officiating basis, the clause regarding

‘restriction of pay under FR-35’ was deleted by

issuance of corrigendum and on the basis of the said

factual developments, the High Court had rightly

sustained the order of the Tribunal vide its Judgment

dated 04.11.2011. Hence that order could not have been

reviewed/recalled by the impugned judgment of the High

Court and the case of the appellants being dismissed by

subsequent order dated 10.10.2019.

40. In the circumstances, we find merit in these

appeals. Consequently, we allow these appeals, set

aside the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by

the High Court referred to above and direct the

respondent(s) to give effect to the judgment of the

High Court dated 04.11.2011 which had affirmed the

order of the Tribunal dated 08.04.2010 by recalling

orders of reversion, if any, and extending monetary

benefits to the appellants herein and thereafter, to

consider their cases under the Voluntary Retirement
22
Scheme (VRS) if they have so applied and if their

applications are in order. No costs.

41. In view of the above, all pending interlocutory

applications stand disposed.

….……………………………………J
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]

..………………………………………….J
[B.R. GAVAI]

…………………………………………J
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 21, 2021.



Source link