ORDER : Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (for brevity 'MTNL') has preferred this appeal by leave against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2011 rendered by the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 4936 of 2010 and also against the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi (for brevity 'the Tribunal') dated 20th January, 2010 passed in T.A. No. 220 of 2009 (entitled Sh. S.M. Lal & Ors. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.). Although it is not necessary to go into the particulars but the TA Case mentioned above was in fact a Writ Petition initially filed in Delhi High Court but subsequently transferred to the Tribunal on account of creation of the Tribunal by law. The Tribunal allowed the claim of the petitioners (respondents herein) by holding that they shall be considered to be promoted to ITS 'Group A' service in Senior Time Scale (STS) at the time of their absorption on 1st October, 2000 in the service of MTNL and held them entitled to all the consequential benefits. Appellant's challenge to the order of the Tribunal has been repelled by the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court. 2. Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant persuaded us to go deeper into the merits of the impugned judgment on the plea that there may be similar other claims pending at different fora and hence MTNL is interested in laying down of correct law although all these seven respondents in this appeal have admittedly superannuated from service after completing their tenure successfully not only on the post on which they were absorbed but also on higher posts as a consequence of subsequent promotions. 3. After taking us through the judgment of the Tribunal and the High Court, learned senior counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the fact that the Tribunal had extracted in extenso from a judgment in the case of N.S.K. Nayar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1992) 2 Suppl. 3. After taking us through the judgment of the Tribunal and the High Court, learned senior counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the fact that the Tribunal had extracted in extenso from a judgment in the case of N.S.K. Nayar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1992) 2 Suppl. SCC 508 and without noticing that in that judgment relief had been granted to the concerned officials because they had put in long 10 to 15 years of continuous officiating service in the higher grade, ratio of that judgment was mechanically applied to the case of the respondents herein without reference to the relevant facts and the length of continuous service rendered on officiating basis by these officials. According to the appellant, and the fact is not disputed by the other side, only one of the respondents began officiating on the post of Divisional Engineer (DE) on 23.01.1996. The others got officiating promotions either in 1997 or 1998. The submission is that had the Tribunal applied its mind to the fact that respondents herein had such little officiating service to their credit, it would not have committed the error of applying the law laid down in the case of N.S.K. Nayar (supra). The same error, as per submissions, has crept in the impugned judgment of the High Court which has simply reiterated the views taken by the Tribunal. 4. The other submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant is that benefit of continuous service on higher post on officiating basis could have been claimed or obtained by the respondents as per law, only while they were under employment of Central Government, Department of Telecommunication (DoT). Such past service will have no value or consequence so far as service under the MTNL is concerned because all these officials who are respondents herein as well as similarly situated other employees who were absorbed in the service of MTNL had agreed to and accepted the terms and conditions of their absorption on the substantive post they held at the time of absorption. There is no dispute that at the time of absorption the respondents were holding the post of Engineer in Telcom Engineering Service 'Group B'. There is no dispute that at the time of absorption the respondents were holding the post of Engineer in Telcom Engineering Service 'Group B'. According to appellant, although absorption order was issued on 24.01.2004, the absorption was made effective from 01.10.2000 and hence any further promotion from the post which the respondents were holding substantially on the date of absorption could be governed only by the rules applicable to service under MTNL. Hence, it is submitted that respondents were not entitled to claim the relief of promotion to the post of DE on regular basis with effect from 01.10.2000 more so when their period spent on ad-hoc basis was not as long as 10 or 15 years like in the case of N.S.K. Nayar (supra). It has been further submitted that for regular promotion to the higher post the minimum period spent on TES 'Group B' post should have been four years but even that requirement was not kept in mind by the Tribunal or the High Court. 5. In reply, Dr. L.S. Choudhary, learned counsel representing respondent No.2 has not made any serious attempt to justify the Tribunal's action of placing reliance solely upon the case of N.S.K. Nayar (supra). According to him, the basis of the claim of respondents was paragraph 3 of policy decision contained in Circular of DoT dated 08.05.2000 on the subject of permanent absorption of 'Group A' and 'Group B' officers in MTNL. The said paragraph 3 has been extracted by the High Court in the impugned judgment and runs as follows:- "3. Selection of officers opting for MTNL will be strictly on the basis of their seniority in their respective cadre. Since due to litigations, DPC in some of the services could not be conducted for quite long time, hence all the officers promoted on TCHQ orders will be treated in promoted cadre provided they have assumed the charge of higher cadre." 6. Elaborating the contents of paragraph 3 noted above, it has been submitted that all the concerned authorities who at the time of creation of MTNL had to provide this new organisation with adequate staff by way of special deputation for the purpose of absorption etc., were aware of pending litigations with respect to seniority and other service matters. Elaborating the contents of paragraph 3 noted above, it has been submitted that all the concerned authorities who at the time of creation of MTNL had to provide this new organisation with adequate staff by way of special deputation for the purpose of absorption etc., were aware of pending litigations with respect to seniority and other service matters. Therefore it was clearly stipulated that due to litigation, DPC in some of the services could not be conducted for long time and hence all the officers promoted on TCHQ Orders will be treated in promoted cadre if they have assumed the charge of higher cadre. TCHQ has been explained to mean Telecommunication Headquarters and that respondents were officiating on higher posts on account of TCHQ Orders and there is also no dispute that they had assumed charge of higher cadre before absorption; and in fact they were retained on the higher post of DE even subsequent to absorption. 7. At this stage, it would be relevant to notice the documents produced on behalf of the appellant and the circular issued by the DoT dated 29th August, 2003 addressed to Chairman and MD of BSNL and MTNL on the special absorption of 'Group B' officers in these organisations. 8. Paragraph 5 of this Circular was highlighted and it reads as follows: "5. For the present options from available Group B officers only will be called. The absorption will take place in the substantive grate as of 1.10.2000. Options from Group A will be called for in next phase. However, Group B officers promoted after 1.10.2000 as Group A, if desire to get absorbed in their substantive Grade of group B, will be allowed to exercise their option leaving their seniority issue open till absorption of Group as is completed." 9. Options from Group A will be called for in next phase. However, Group B officers promoted after 1.10.2000 as Group A, if desire to get absorbed in their substantive Grade of group B, will be allowed to exercise their option leaving their seniority issue open till absorption of Group as is completed." 9. Although the appellant has relied upon the aforesaid letter dated 29th August, 2003, for underscoring the fact that respondents were absorbed only on their original substantive post which was a 'Group B' post, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have relied upon the same provisions to highlight that the Circular explains that since options from 'Group A' were not to be called at that stage, 'Group B' officers promoted after 01.10.2000 as 'Group A' were also allowed to exercise option of getting absorbed in the substantive grade of 'Group B' but leaving open the seniority issue in respect of such officers till absorption of 'Group A' is completed. This explanation was only to support the plea of respondents that their option of claiming 'Group A' post was not foreclosed and the matter of seniority even among 'Group A' was left open. 10. On behalf of the respondents it was further highlighted that the letter or order of 29th August, 2003 was issued after the respondents had exercised their option for which the last date was 28.02.2002 and hence they were entitled to advance their claim on the basis of paragraph 3 of the Circular dated 8.5.2000. In fact our attention was drawn to a representation at page 152 dated 08.03.2004 wherein respondent no. 2 claimed that he had been promoted in STS 'Group A' on officiating basis in 1997 and had been working as DE for several years and hence his absorption as 'Group B' officer amounted to demotion and was therefore not acceptable to him. The request in the representation was either to absorb him in STS 'Group A' as DE or to treat his option as null and void. 11. On hearing the parties, including respondent no. 5 who appears in person, we are in agreement with the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal as well as the High Court erred in law in placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of N.S.K. Nayar (supra). The fact situation in the matter at hand was quite different. 5 who appears in person, we are in agreement with the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal as well as the High Court erred in law in placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of N.S.K. Nayar (supra). The fact situation in the matter at hand was quite different. The relief which the respondents claimed was not by pleading that they had put in huge number of years on officiating basis and had been dealt with arbitrarily by DoT or MTNL in denying them regular promotions. To that extent, we have no hesitation in holding that the legal basis of the impugned orders is not correct. Still, the other contentions of the respondents is worthy of consideration on its own merit. Prima facie it appears that they exercise their option in favour of service under MTNL on a understanding that as per paragraph 3 of the Circular dated 8th May, 2000, MTNL shall give them the due advantage and their officiating promotion as per TCHQ Orders will be treated as regular promotions to the concerned cadre as they had assumed charge of the higher cadre. This aspect of respondents' case has totally escaped the required focus and attention of the Tribunal as well as the High court. Ordinarily, we would have set aside the order so as to remit the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law, however, since all the respondents have now superannuated from service after serving not only on the concerned post of DE but in some cases even on higher posts, in our view, the matter requires to be given a quietus on account of aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances. The law may be laid down correctly in any other appropriate case. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with a direction that the benefits already extended to the respondents as well as their pension already determined as per salary received and work done by them shall not be altered to their disadvantage. There shall be no order as to costs.