TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 1338
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., praying therein that they be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file an O.A. before the CAT to claim appropriate relief. A co- ordinate Division Bench of this Court, while considering the notification dated 31.10.2008 whereby the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited was notified under Section 14(2) of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 with effect from 10.11.2008, passed an order on 03.03.2009 dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the Petitioners have an alternative and statutory remedy before the CAT and also directed that in case an original application is moved within two months from the date of order, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law, on merits. The order of this Court, on reproduction, reads as under: Hon'ble U.K. Dhaon, J. Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra, J. Heard Sri R.C. Saxena, learned counsel for petitioners no. 4,5,7 and 11 and Sri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no. 2 and 3. Sri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 and 3 has placed before us a copy of the notification dated 31.10.2008 by which the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity list No. 4 at serial No. 128 and serial No. 198 respectively whereas names of opposite party No. 5 to 8 being junior were mentioned in seniority list No. 5. The seniority lists were prepared only towards the compliance of a direction issued by the Supreme Court vide the judgment and order dated 26.04.2000 passed in C.A. No. 4339 of 1995 (Union of India v. Madras Telephones SC/ST Social Welfare Association) reported in 2000 (9) SCC 71. 7. Learned Counsel while explaining the position submitted that in the year 1987 and 1988 under Limited Departmental Competitive Examination Quota, the examination was held to fill the available vacancies by promotion to TES Group 'B'. Thus a panel of successful/selected candidates was drawn and all such selected candidates were promoted to TES Group 'B' according to merit. However, the opposite parties No. 5 to 8 and a large number of other candidates who had appeared in the above examination could not get promotion on account of non-inclusion of their names in the merit list prepared for promotion according to the vacancy position available at that time. Moreover, opposite parties No. 5 to 8 and other candidates who were not pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ders dated 20.12.2001 promoting 656 TES Group 'B' officers to STS of ITS Group 'A' and further vide another order dated 21.08.2001 promoted 479 TES Group 'B' officers to STS of ITS Group 'A'. These promotion orders also included 270 TES Group 'B' officers and the private Respondents herein in whose favour the order dated 01.02.2001 under 1/3rd competitive quota had been issued. Thus, even during the pendency of matters before the High Court the official Respondents carried out the promotions of other officers on the basis of revised seniority list in question and ignored the Petitioners. The said writ petitions being Nos. 21961 and 22087 of 2001 were decided by the Madras High Court on 02.04.2008 whereby the decision of the CAT Bench at Madras was upheld. Thereafter, 4 aggrieved officers, who had filed writ petitions in Madras High Court, filed Special Leave Petition No. 11339 of 2008 wherein vide an order dated 21.12.2008 Hon'ble the Apex Court passed interim order of status-quo. Thus, it is only on the ground that in the pending Special leave Petition, an interim order granting status quo was passed, the O.A. of Petitioners was rejected....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld not have rejected the claim petition in contravention of directions issued by this Court.s 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4 submitted that the judgment of CAT Bench at Madras affirmed by the Madras High Court has not yet attained finality in view of the interim order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated 21.12.2008 whereby the parties have been directed to maintain status quo as on that date in regard to judgment and order of the Madras High Court. Learned Counsel also submitted that the Tribunal while declining to admit the Original Application of the Petitioner had also granted liberty to approach the Tribunal afresh after the Special Leave Petition in Madras case is decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Learned Counsel referred to a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court reported in (1994) Supp. (3) SCC 644 ( A.Halim and Ors. v. Ms. Tajadeen and Ors.) to argue that a parallel proceedings should not be allowed to continue. 9. Learned Counsel further submitted that the relief as prayed before the Tribunal in terms of liberty granted by this Court was totally different from the relief sought before the High Court in writ petition, and fur....