Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDCITION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8947 OF 2013  ((Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.24120 of 2007)

Bharat Sanchar Nigam  Limited  and another ….  Appellants

Versus

G. Sarvothaman …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Leave granted.

2. We  are  in  this  case  concerned  with  the  question  

whether the Chief Commissioner has got the powers to order  

regularization  of  promotion  and  identification  of  eligible  

posts  in  a  cadre,  in  the  Department  of  erstwhile  

Telecommunications, while exercising powers under Section

Page 2

2

59  of  the  Persons  with  Disabilities  (Equal  Opportunities,  

Protection  of  Rights  and  Full  Participation)  Act,  1995  (for  

short ‘the Act of 1995).

3. The Respondent   was  appointed  as  a  Lower  Division  

Clerk  on  compassionate  ground  in  relaxation  of  normal  

recruitment rules, including upper age limit and typing test,  

in  the  Post  Master  General’s  Office  Trivandrum  on  

23.01.1973  in  the  PMT  Department,  which  was  later  

bifurcated  into  Departments  of  Posts  and  

Telecommunications.   The  Respondent   then  opted  for  

Telecommunications Department.  Nomenclature of posts of  

Lower  Division  Clerk/Upper  Division  Clerk/Office  

Superintendent  (LDC/UDC/OS  in  short)  was  changed  as  

Telecom Operating Assistants in the Telecom Department.  

Telecom  Office  Assistant  (TOA  in  short)  Grade-I  included  

LDC/UDC/OS, Grade-II included Section supervisors, Grade-III  

included Senior Section Supervisors, Grade-IV included Chief  

Section  Supervisors.   The  above  categorization  was  done  

w.e.f 09.09.1992.  The Respondent was later promoted as ad

Page 3

3

hoc UDC w.e.f. 1977 and was promoted as UDC on regular  

basis w.e.f. 04.11.1982 on seniority-cum-fitness quota.  Later  

he was placed as TOA Grade-II  (Section Supervisor)  w.e.f.  

09.09.1992.  The  Respondent was again promoted as TOA  

Grade-III (Senior Section Supervisor), w.e.f. 01.07.1999.   

4. The Respondent then applied for promotion under the  

physically  handicapped  person’s  quota  after  availing  all  

facilities  of  restructured  Cadre  on  the  basis  of  the  OM  

No.36035/8/89-Estt.(SCT)  dated  20.11.1989,  which  was  

considered  and  rejected  by  BSNL  on  the  ground  that  no  

relaxation/reservation  in  promotion  was  permissible  under  

schemes for physically handicapped persons as in the case  

of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST in short) officials.  

Further,  it  was  also  noticed  that  the  respondent’s  

appointment was not under physically handicapped quota.  

The Respondent, aggrieved by the rejection order passed by  

the BSNL filed a complaint before the Commissioner, praying  

that  he  should  be  given  promotion  to  the  post  of  Lower  

Selection  Grade  (LSG  in  short)  (Section  Supervisors)

Page 4

4

retrospectively  w.e.f.  20.11.1989  and  to  the  upgraded  

clerical posts of TOA Grade-III  (Senior Section Supervisors)  

and  TOA  Grade-IV  (Chief  Section  Supervisors)  w.e.f.  

07.02.1996.   The  Chief  Commissioner  entertained  the  

complaint and registered case No.1109/2001 under Section  

59  of  the  Act  of  1995.   The  Commissioner  after  hearing  

parties  and  examining  various  contentions  passed  the  

following order on 26.12.2002.  The operative portion of the  

same reads as under:

“The  respondents  are,  therefore,  directed  to  include  the  TOA  cadre  which  is  required  to  do  clerical  work  and  other  such  jobs  in  the  list  of  identified  jobs  issued  by  Department  of  Telecommunications  vide  their  letter  No.1- 8/2001/AO(SNG)  dated  18.10.01  to  be  inconformity  with  the  list  of  identified  jobs  published in the Gazette notification No.178 dated  30.06.2001 referred to above.  Upon identification  of the cadre for PH persons, the respondents are  directed  to  prepare  a  100  point  reservation  register  for  PH  persons  as  required  under  the  existing instructions of Department of Personnel &  Training/Department  of  Telecommunications  and

Page 5

5

to  consider  the  claim  of  the  complainant  for  promotion  under  reserved  vacancies  for  the  grade(s)  if  he  becomes  eligible  as  a  PH  person  against reserved vacancies.”

5. BSNL,  aggrieved  by  the  above-mentioned  order  

approached  the  Kerala  High  Court  by  filing  Writ  Petition  

No.30816 of 2003 which was dismissed by a learned Single  

Judge vide order dated 19.02.2007, ordering that the benefit  

of LSG cadre be given to the respondent from 01.03.1992.  

Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred by  

special leave.

6. The Department of Personnel and Training vide its OM  

dated  20.11.1989  introduced  reservation  in  favour  of  

physically handicapped persons in posts filled by promotion  

in (i) within Group ‘D’ (ii) from Group ‘D’ to Grup ‘C’ and (iii)  

within  Group  ‘C’.   Reservation  was  provided  for  three  

categories  of persons namely, visually handicapped, hearing  

handicapped  and  orthopedically  handicapped.   The  

applicability  of  reservation  was,  however,  limited  to  the

Page 6

6

promotion being made to those posts that were identified as  

being  capable  of  being  filled/held  by  these  appropriate  

categories of handicapped persons.  On 09.09.1992, a new  

cadre was created under restructuring scheme of erstwhile  

Department of Telecommunications.  A choice was given to  

the employees working in the  clerical stream to opt for the  

new cadre of TOA or to remain in the clerical cadre.  The  

posts in the clerical cadre became redundant as the majority  

of the employees had chosen to join the new cadre due to  

the difference in pay scale advantageous to them.  Names of  

cadre and pay scales are given below for ready reference:

Name of  The erst- while  cadre

Pay scale (Rupees)

Name of  cadre under  TOA pattern  w.e.f.  09.09.1992

Pay scale  (Rupees)

1 LDC 950-1400 TOA-GR-1 975-1660 2 UDC 1200-1800 TOA GR-II  

[SS(O)] 1400-2300

3 LSG 1400-2300 TOA GR-III  [Sr.SS(O)]

1600-2550

4 OS 1600-2600 TOA GR-IV  (CSS)

1640-2900

7. An employee who chose to join the new cadre of TOA  

cannot  revert  back  on  his  own  choice  for  claiming  any

Page 7

7

financial  or  promotion  benefit  in  both  the  cadres  

simultaneously.  The Respondent had opted for restructured  

cadre of TOA.  Consequently, he was placed as TOA-Grade-II  

(Section  Supervisor)  w.e.f.  09.09.1992  when  restructured  

scheme was implemented on 09.09.1992.

8. The Department of Telecommunications formed a High  

Power Committee for identification of posts in group ‘C’ from  

‘D’  for  the  purpose  of  9%  reservation  for  physically  

handicapped persons.   The Committee identified 5 cadres,  

namely, JTO, JAO, Stenographers, JE (Civil) and JE (Electrical),  

which was circulated for compliance vide letter No.226-07/96-

STN dated 12.05.1997.   The Respondent in the meanwhile  

was   promoted as  TOA Grade-III  (Senior  Supervisor)  w.e.f.  

01.07.1999.   He  later  applied  for  promotion  under  the  

physically handicapped quota after availing of all the facilities  

of restructured cadre.  In fact, he claimed promotion to the  

post  of  LSG (SS)  with retrospective effect  w.e.f.20.11.1989  

and to the upgraded clerical post of TOA Grade-III  (Sr.  SS)

Page 8

8

and  TOA  Grade-IV  (CSS)  w.e.f.  07.02.1996,  which  was  

rejected by the Department.      

9. We  notice  that  the  promotion  in  the  physically  

handicapped quota was limited to certain categories of posts  

as identified by the High Powered Committee constituted for  

the purpose of identification of the cadre.  The High Power  

Committee  was  constituted  by  the  erstwhile  

Telecommunication  Department  for  identifying  the  post  to  

which  physically  handicapped  persons  could  be  promoted  

under  the  physically  handicapped  reservation  quota.   The  

High  Power  Committee  had  identified  five  cadres  for  

promotion and they were JTO, JAO, Stenographers, JE (Civil)  

and  JE  (Electrical).   The  operative  portion  of  the  Circular  

dated 1.5.1997 reads as follows:

“Now, it has been decided to have a reservation of  1.5% each for partially hearing impaired which can  be improved with hearing aid and for locomotive  disability  effecting  one  leg  or  limb  only  in  the  vacancies  in  the  cadre of  JTO,  JAO,  JE  (Civil),  JE  (Electrical)  and  Stenographers  for  direct  recruitment quota as well as department quota.”

Page 9

9

10. We notice that the cadre of clerks was not identified for  

the purpose of  promotion  under  the  physically  

handicapped reservations.  Since the respondent was a TOA,  

he could not be considered for physically handicapped quota  

in Sr.  TOA cadre.  TOA cadre was introduced in the circle  

office w.e.f. 09.09.1992 and the Respondent had opted for  

TOA pattern with effect from the said date and it was with  

his own consent. Consequently, the respondent was working  

as TOA at the relevant time which was not identified for the  

purpose of  reservation for  physically  handicapped persons  

and hence his claim for promotion to Grade-IV could not be  

allowed  since  the  promotion  to  the  Grade  was  based  on  

seniority  in  the  basic  cadre  and  in  fact  there  was  no  

reservation  even  for  SC/ST  candidates  for  promotion  to  

Grade-IV.

11. We are of the view that the Chief Commissioner as well  

as  the  High  Court  have  failed  to  appreciate  that  the  

respondent was working in a cadre in which there was no

Page 10

10

reservation  for  promotion  under  physically  handicapped  

quota.  Further exclusion of TOA cadre from the promotional  

post  of  physically  handicapped persons is  due to a policy  

decision  of  the  Government  of  India  taken  by  the  then  

Department of Telecommunications.  In such circumstances,  

the Chief Commissioner has no power under Section 59 of  

the Act of 1995 to direct the inclusion of TOA cadre in the list  

of  identified  posts  and  then  to  order  preparation  of  

reservation register for physically handicapped persons and  

to consider the claim of the respondent for promotion under  

the reserved vacancies for the various Grades under TOA.   

12. The Chief Commissioner under Section 59 of the Act of  

1995 has got only the power to examine the matters relating  

to “deprivation of rights” of persons with disabilities.   The  

Commissioner can only examine whether the persons with  

disabilities have been deprived of any “rights” for which the  

Commissioner has to first examine whether the complainant  

has any “rights” under the laws.  The Commissioner cannot  

confer or create any right for the Appellants. The respondent

Page 11

11

could not establish that any right has been conferred on him  

and such right has been denied to him by the Department.  

The Respondent  wanted conferment  of  a  right  which  was  

extended  only  to  specific  five  categories  of  posts  on  the  

basis of the report of a High Power Committee.  The Chief  

Commissioner has no power to direct inclusion of one more  

category among the identified categories and to grant the  

benefit.   Under Section 59(b)  the Chief  Commissioner has  

got the power to look into the complaints with respect to the  

matters relating to non-implementation of laws, rules, bye-

laws, regulations, executive orders, guidelines or instructions  

made or issued by the appropriate Government and the local  

authorities for the welfare and protection of rights or persons  

with disabilities.  It is not the case of the respondent that the  

Department has failed to implement either any laws, rules or  

regulations.  The Respondent prayed for positive direction,  

claiming certain rights, which had not been conferred on him  

either by any law,  regulations or orders.  Consequently, the  

directions given by the Chief Commissioner for the inclusion  

of  TOA  cadre  among  the  identified  categories  cannot  be

Page 12

12

sustained and the Commissioner  while passing such order  

has exceeded the powers conferred on him under Section 59  

of the Act of 1995.

13. We, for the reasons mentioned above, allow this appeal  

and  set  aside  the  order  of  the  Chief  Commissioner,  as  

confirmed by the High Court.  There shall be no order as to  

costs.

………………………………..J.      (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

   …..…………………………….J.     (A.K. Sikri)

New Delhi, October 04, 2013.