Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Thursday This The 19Th Day Of January vs ) Union Of India on 19 January, 2017
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 180/00974 of 2015
Thursday this the 19th day of January, 2017
CORAM
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K.Balakrishnan, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mrs. P. Gopinath, Administrative Member
1 K.J. Koshy Kunju S/o late K. Jacob
Muthalaly, aged 67 years, Retired
Deputy Postmaster, HPO, Department of Posts,
residing at Kans Villa, South of LMS Hospital,
Kundara, Kollam-691501.
2 J. Philomina, W/o N. Alexander, aged 67 years
Retired Assistant Postmaster, HPO, Kollam
Department of Posts, residing at 'Thoppil'
Neethi Nagar 58-A, Pattathanam PO, Kollam-691021.
3 N.K. Anandalekshmi, W/o Late P.J Somanatha Nair,
aged 68 years, Retired Sub Postmaster, Kollam,
Department of Posts, residing at Ananda Vihar,
Kottaram Nagar-19, Kottakkakam Ward,
Kollam.691103.
4 M. Ishakunju W/o late N. Ibrahim Kunju,
aged 68 years, Retired Sub Postmaster,
Department of Posts, residing at Pinarumoottil
House, Clappana PO Pin.690525.
5 S.Janardhana Kurup S/o late P.G Sankara Kurup
Retired Sub Postmaster, Department of Posts,
residing at Plamkeezhil Kappil East PO,
Krishnapuram-690533. .... Applicants
(By Advocates Mr. V. Sajith Kumar)
Versus
1) Union of India, represented by the Secretary
to Government, Department of Posts,
Government of India, New Delhi-110001.
2) The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Trivandrum-695001.
3) The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kollam Postal Division, Kollam-682011.
... Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. N. Anilkumar, Sr.Panel Central Govt. Counsel)
This application having been finally heard on 12.01.2017, the Tribunal on
19th January, 2017 delivered the following:
ORDER
Per: Justice N.K. Balakrishnan, Judicial Member The five applicants in this case have approached this Tribunal contending that there has been anomaly in the fixation of pay as the entitlement to get Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) fixation with effect from the date of completion of 26 years of service was not followed by the respondents. The applicants entered into service on 10.7.1969, 8.7.1969, 9.7.1969, 8.7.1969 and 20.11.1969 respectively and as such they had completed 26 years of service making them eligible for BCR with effect from 9.7.1995, 7.7.1995, 8.7.1995, 7.7.1995 and 19.11.1995. By a common order (Annexure A1) all of them were granted BCR with effect from 1.1.1996. It is stated that the 5th CPC was implemented with effect from 1.1.1996 and so the fixation of pay was allowed in the revised scale as on 1.1.1996. That has resulted in heavy financial loss, the applicants contend. Though the applicants submitted representations it was not acceded to by the respondents.
2. The claim is opposed by the respondents contending as follows:
As per the recommendations of the 5th CPC, ACP for Central Government Civil employees was introduced with effect from 9.8.1999. As per the ACP Scheme two financial up-gradations shall be granted during the period of 12 and 24 years. As per the Time Bound One Promotion Scheme (TBOP Scheme) introduced with effect from 30.11.1983 those employees who had completed 16 years of qualifying service were given the financial up-gradation to the next higher scale of pay. On completion of 26 years of qualifying service the employees were given 2 nd financial up gradation under the BCR introduced with effect from 1.10.1991. The applicants were duly granted their financial up-gradation under the TBOP and BCR schemes. The crucial date for financial up-gradation are Ist January and Ist July of each year in respect of those officials who complete 26 years of satisfying service during the half yearly period of Ist July to 31 st December and Ist January to 30 th June of each year respectively. Thus pointing out the date of entry in service and date of completion of 26 years etc. impugned orders were justified.
3. The point for consideration is:
Whether the applicants are entitled to the financial up-gradation on completion of 26 years of service itself?
4. The learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that similar contentions were raised by the respondents opposing the claim made by similar applicants in the earlier cases. The orders passed by this Tribunal in OA 69/2012, OA 112/2014 and two other connected cases and order in OA 418/2016 have been relied upon in this connection. It is not disputed that those orders have attained finality. It was held in OA 69/2012 and OA 430/2009 that the applicants are entitled to get financial up gradation on completion of 26 years of satisfactory/qualifying service. The contention raised by the respondents that it would be allowable only on the Ist January or Ist of July after the completion of 26 years was not accepted.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is a subsequent government order which would show that it would be allowable only from Ist of January or Ist of July as the case may be which would occur subsequent to the completion of 26 years. But in the light of the decisions rendered by this Tribunal which attained finality the argument so advanced on behalf of the respondents cannot be sustained.
6. Since the scheme says that the allowability is on completion of 26 years, it cannot be postponed or deferred to a future date. That is the dictum laid down by this Tribunal in various cases referred to above. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that the applicants are entitled to get the BCR fixation on the respective date of completion of 26 years as mentioned in the Original Application. Ordered accordingly. But the arrears would be limited to a period of three years immediately prior to the filing of this Original Application.
7. This OA is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(Mrs. P. Gopinath) ( N.K. Balakrishnan) Administrative Member Judicial Member kspps