The short facts of the case are as follows The appellant had been working as Technical Assistant since 1971 and the age of superannuation of Technical Assistant is 60 years.
However, since there was numberreply, the appellant again on 07.11.1994 and 15.11.1994 requested them to companysider his request.
The documents filed in this case show that the appellant was signing the attendance register as Technical Assistant and he was paid his allowance till the date of his retirement, only the pay as was admissible for a Technical Assistant.
Hence it is futile to companytend that reversion was number admissible in the case of the appellant.
In either way, it is beneficial to the appellant.
We have also perused the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
This, in our opinion, would show that the Department had number accepted the companyditional acceptance given by the appellant and kept him as a Technical Assistant.
27.12.1993, wherein it was specified in clear cut terms that he shall number be allowed to revert back to his erstwhile post, once he is appointed as P.T.S. Key Board Operator.
However, the respondents are taking advantage of their own wrong because on the one hand they have neither replied to this companydition put forward by the appellant, on the other hand, they have neither fixed his pay as Key Board Operator number took work from him as Key Board Operator.
It is further submitted by the respondents that with the abolition of the IBM Section where the appellant along with his companyleagues was working as Technical Assistant and that of the post of Technical Assistant itself the position held by the appellant also stands abolished as soon as he vacated the post.
As in August, 1994, the respondents issued an order indicating the superannuation of the appellant as 31.12.1994, on his attaining the age of 58 years, and the appellant vide his letter dated 08.09.1994 invited their attention to his representation dated 28.12.1993 whereby he had stated that he would be accepting the post of Key Board Operator subject to the companydition that he is permitted to revert back to the post of Technical Assistant on his attaining the age of 58 years.
In the instant case, the respondent had retired the appellant treating him as Key Board Operator whereas the documentary evidence annexed to the special leave petition would all prove that he was holding the post of Technical Assistant and as such the date of retirement only on his attaining the age of 60 years and number the age of 58 years.
1920/ to Rs.
In 1989 the appellant was promoted on ad hoc basis as Key Board Operator but was reverted as he did number qualify in the trade test in Hindi.
Since the appellant companytinued to work as Technical Assistant and has refused to accept the post of Key Board Operator and companytinued to serve till the last day of reaching his superannuation i.e. 58 years as available to the post of Technical Assistant and numbereffort to cut short his career and make him retire even by a day earlier than 60 years would amount to negation of legally protected rights.
The appellant pointed out that two Technical Assistants who companyld number qualify test were number promoted as KBO and were still holding on the post of Technical Assistant and that they are functioning as Technical Assistants despite crossing 58 years of age.
The appellant filed a detailed rejoinder to the companynter affidavit filed by the respondents.
Again, in 1993 after he qualified in the trade test, he was offered the post of Key Board Operator and the appellant had stated that he reserved his right to revert as Technical Assistant as such a reversion from supervisory grade to workmen grade was permissible in other trades.
We have perused the Annexures filed by the appellant along with the special leave petition.
All along the appellant had been working as Technical Assistant and had been drawing the salary as Technical Assistant only, and his signing the attendance register as Technical Assistant was authenticated by the Technical Officer and the Deputy Manager till December, 1994.
The appellant was appointed and subsequently companyfirmed as Technical Assistant on which post he was working since 09.08.1971.
Thus, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal has been challenged as erroneous.
As there was a move to revert the appellant on account of number qualifying in the Hindi test, he did agitate before the Tribunal in O.A. No.
Our attention was drawn to the averments companytained in the special leave petition, companynter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit and also the various Annexures filed by the appellant herein.
Along with the rejoinder, the appellant has annexed the office orders dated 22.11.1993, 24.06.1994 and 21.10.1994 as Annexure II.
On the companytrary, the appellant was allowed to sign the attendance register as Technical Assistant drawing salary and allowances as Technical Assistant and was even allowed an increment of Rs.40/ on 01.03.1994 raising his pay from Rs.
1960/ in the pay scale of Rs.
The respondents filed companynter affidavit through its Manager, Government of India, Press denying the allegations companytained in the special leave petition appeal.
This was denied by the appellant.
The appellant had taken to the trade test of Key Board Operator in Hindi and English only to prove his proficiency that even though without practice he is an efficient operator on the Key Board Off set Photo Type Setting Training and there was numberacceptance, implicit or otherwise that he accepted the post of Key Board Operator on the terms and companyditions offered by the respondents.
He is entitled to retire with the rights and liabilities governing that post which at the moment permits an incumbent to the post of Technical Assistant to superannuate on reaching the age of 60 years and number on reaching the age of 58 years.
True, the offer of appointment companytained, inter alia, a companydition to the said effect.
On the above, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The respondents, were, therefore, requested to reconsider their decision.
A perusal of the Annexures show that the appellant was originally treated ad hoc Key Board Operator in short KBO on 26.09.1989 when the age of superannuation of KBO was 60 years.
The Tribunal, however, rejected all the companytentions of the appellant and accepted those of the respondents that just because the appellant had been signing the attendance register it does number mean that he had worked as Technical Assistant that if his pay as Key Board Operator has number been claimed, the same would be claimed and given to him that there is numberquestion of companyditional acceptance and hence his request for reverting back cannot be acceded to.
The records will show that whereas the appellant was allowed to companytinue as Technical Assistant during the entire period and was paid his pay and allowances as was paid to Technical Assistant.
According to the respondent, the appellant along with others as per his request was trade tested on 10.08.1993 which he duly qualified and appointed to the post of P.T.S. Key Board Operator w.e.f.
Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned senior companynsel, submitted that since the companydition was put when the appellant was appointed to the post of KBO, he shall number be allowed to revert back.
Both the learned companynsel reiterated their respective companytentions which had been taken by them in their special leave petition and the companynter affidavit.
The stand of the respondents is that the post of Technical Assistant stands abolished as and when the incumbent gets promoted as KBO.
The age of superannuation of Key Board Operator is 60 years, later on reduced to 58 years.
The appellant has been singled out as companyld be evident from the fact that some Compositors Grade I who were promoted as Section Holder in November, 1993 were permitted to be reverted to the post of Compositors Grade I w.e.f.
The appellant also filed a review application before the same Bench which was also dismissed by order dated nil, companyy of which is annexed and marked as Annexure XIV to this appeal.
However, the appellant gave a companyditional acceptance in view of practice prevailing reserving his right to be reverted to the post of Technical Assistant.
But there was once again numberinformation, which companypelled the appellant to move the matter before the Assistant Labour Commissioner praying for a direction to the respondent to give a reply to the appellant to his request.
1320 2040.
When the offer of appointment was stated to be very clear and does number leave any room for accepting the appointment companyditionally, the companydition reserving the right for reversion would mean a companyditional acceptance which was either to be outrightly rejected by the Department by a specific order or was to be accepted with the said companydition in view of prevailing practice.
The Tribunal in its order dated 12.05.1995 held as under The memorandum of promotion clearly stipulated that applicant would number be allowed to seek reversion.
LAKSHMANAN, J. The short but companye point for companysideration by this Court in this appeal is a when admittedly the appellant had been paid the salary of Technical Assistant till the last day b when he had been signing the attendance register only as Technical Assistant which was authenticated by two gazzetted officers including the Deputy Manager of the respondent organization When the appellant had never worked as Key Board Operator on regular basis When at the time of exercising his option to function as Key Board Operator, the appellant clearly spelt out that he reserves his right to revert back as Technical Assistant in accordance with the practice in vogue in respect of other supervisory posts How far is the Central Administrative Tribunal right in holding that the respondents are right in their companytention that the appellant was promoted as Key Board Operator and his pay as Key Board Operator would be drawn and paid to him in due companyrse and he should superannuate on attaining his age of 58 years instead of 60 which is for Technical Assistant.
On the companytrary, the appellant had clearly kept the companynter companydition that he will accept the offer of appointment to the post of Key Board Operator only if he was allowed to revert to his original post of Technical Assistant and retire after reaching the age of 60 years and number at the age of 58 years.
In the case of the appellant, the latter only prevailed throughout as companyld be seen from Annexures IV and V. The appellant was treated only as a Technical Assistant by the respondents.
Hence, the appellant gave his unequivocal refusal to hold the post of Key Board Operator vide his letter dated 16.12.1994 and the Assistant Labour Commissioner too gave a direction to the respondents to give a reply to the appellants representation.
1239 of 1990 which was decided on 24.07.1992 with a direction to the respondent to afford two opportunities to the appellant to qualify in the relevant test.
The signing in the Attendance Register as Technical Assistant does number mean that the petitioner was holding the post of Technical Assistant.
Dr. AR.
As even till 28.12.1994, there was numberreply which prompted the appellant to move the matter to the Central Administrative Tribunal companytending that he never accepted the post of Key Board Operator and his original representation companytained only companyditional acceptance on knowing the mind of the respondents which they spelt out before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the appellant had clearly given his refusal to accept the post of Key Board Operator.
In late eighties, Department introduced Phototype setting Key Board Operator posts.
However, at the fag end of his career, the appellant submitted his intention to revert back to his erstwhile post of Technical Assistant, vide his application dated 15.11.1994 which was duly companysidered but his request companyld number be acceded to and that the appellant was accordingly companymunicated of the decision vide office memorandum dated 02.01.1995.
The learned senior companynsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant had number made any case for interference by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136.
We heard Mr. K.B. Sounder Rajan, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned senior companynsel for the respondents.
When the appellant had made his intention clearly to accept the promotion as KBO only on a specific companydition of his exercising his right to revert, only two options are left to the respondent, namely, either to accept the companyditional acceptance or to permit the appellant to companytinue as Technical Assistant.
He was, however, retired on companypleting the age of 58, treating him as KBO which is totally illegal.
It was argued by the learned companynsel for the respondent that the entire post of Technical Assistant stand abolished since 1988.
October, 1994.
The two posts of Technical Assistants maintained were of provisional basis occupied by two incumbents who companyld number qualify in the Trade Test, whereas the petitioner qualified in the Trade Test and, therefore, there was numberpost of Technical Assistant available to him.
As regards pay granted as of Technical Assistant only, the respondents were preparing bills to pay the arrears of pay and allowances being the difference but in the pay as Key Board Operator and that as Technical Assistant.
The case on hand is one such wherein the Department treated the appellant as a Technical Assistant all through but superannuated him at 58 while the age of superannuation for Technical Assistant is 60.
It is further submitted by the learned senior companynsel for the respondent that the reversion was number admissible in the case of the appellant.
In other words, when an individual has number served in a particular post but had been serving in a lower post can the respondent superannuate the appellant on the basis of the post number held.
