Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.G.SAJITH, SENIOR TELECOM OFFICE versus THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.G.SAJITH, SENIOR TELECOM OFFICE v. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM - WP(C) No. 27985 of 2003(F) [2006] RD-KL 2798 (7 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 27985 of 2003(F)

1. M.G.SAJITH, SENIOR TELECOM OFFICE
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM,
... Respondent

2. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM,

3. THE GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM,

For Petitioner :SRI.N.R.CHANDRASEKHARAN

For Respondent :SRI.K.KESAVANKUTTY, SC, BSNL

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :07/12/2006

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

W.P(C)No.27985 of 2003

Dated this the 7th day of December, 2006



JUDGMENT

The simple question to be considered in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to get notional promotion in the cadre of Senior Telecom Office Assistant under the SSA Ernakulam with effect from 1-1-1994 to 8-3-1996. That is denied on the ground that the petitioner had obtained a Rule 38 transfer to SSA Palakkad. Petitioner joined service under the second respondent on 20-7-1987. The Rule 38 transfer from Ernakulam to Palakkad is on 8-3-1996. Option for entry in the re-structured cadre of Senior TOA was called for on 22-6-1998. The simple contention of the petitioner is that since his Rule 38 transfer from Ernakulam to Palakkad is only on 8-3-1996 he should be given an opportunity to opt for the re-structured cadre as if he had continued in Ernakulam SSA upto 8-3-1996. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the BSNL is that the declaration submitted by the petitioner is only on 22-6-1998 when the petitioner was in Palakkad. But it has to be appreciated that there was no W.P(C)NO.27985/2003 opportunity to the petitioner to submit a declaration earlier since the same was not called for. The first opportunity is only on 22-6-1998. In the declaration, the employees were granted the privilege to opt notionally from 1-1-1994. Therefore, it is only just, reasonable and proper that the petitioner is granted the opportunity to opt for the restructured cadre till he continued in the Ernakulam SSA, ie. On 1-1- 1994 to 8-3-1996. It is declared that the petitioner shall be entitled to have the benefit of the notional promotion in the re-structured cadre of Senior TOA under the second respondent from 1-1-1994 to 8-3-1996. The consequential benefits in the light of the above declaration shall be granted to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)

ahg.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.