Karnataka High Court
Union Of India And Ors vs Bhimaraya V Kattimani S/O Venkanna ... on 5 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH
WRIT PETITION NO.226631/2020 (S-CAT)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.226627/2020 (S-CAT)
In W.P.No.226631/2020:
Between:
1. Union of India
Represented by Secretary
Department of Post
(Postal & Accounts wing)
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-110001
2. Chief Postmaster General
Karnataka Circle, Bangalore
Bengaluru-560 001
3. Postmaster General
N.K. Region, Dharwad
Dharwad-580 001
4. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices
Kalaburagi Division
Kalaburagi-585101
...Petitioners
(By Sri Sudhirsingh R. Vijapur, ASGI)
2
And:
Bhimaraya V. Kattimani S/o Venkanna Kattimani
Age: 57 years
Working as Postal Assistant
Kalaburagi R S MDG-585102
Residing at: Venkateshwar Krupa
Plot No.43, Ambika Nagar
Kalaburgi-585102
...Respondent
(By Sri Shambuling S. Salimath, Advocate)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
Constitution of India, praying to call for the records from the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore and quash the order
dated 11.02.2020 of the CAT, Bangalore in O.A.No.170/00757/
2019 on its file (Anneuxre-A to the W.P.) and to direct the
respondents to Benefits to be made available within two months
next.
In W.P.No.226627/2020:
Between:
1. Union of India
Represented by Secretary
Department of Post
(Postal & Accounts wing)
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-110001
2. Chief Postmaster General
Karnataka Circle, Bangalore
Bengaluru-560 001
3. Postmaster General
N.K. Region, Dharwad
Dharwad-580 001
4. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices
Kalaburagi Division
Kalaburagi-585101
...Petitioners
(By Sri Sudhirsingh R. Vijapur, ASGI)
3
And:
Shri T. Sanjeevayya S/o Thirupathi
Age: 58 years
Working as Postal Assistant
Shorapur M.D.G.
Residing at: C/o Malagatti Mallanna House
Court Road, Near Gadderaya Gudi
Shahapur
Dist. Yadgir-585223
...Respondent
(By Sri Shambuling S. Salimath, Advocate)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
Constitution of India, praying to call for the records from the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore and quash the order
dated 11.02.2020 of the CAT, Bangalore in O.A.No.170/00758/
2019 on its file (Anneuxre-A to the W.P.) and to direct the
respondents to Benefits to be made available within two months
next.
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing 'B'
group this day, Sreenivas Harish Kumar J., made the
following:
COMMON ORDER
These two writ petitions are disposed of by common order as the facts are similar and question of law involved is same. The writ petitions are filed challenging the order dated 11.02.2020 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in Original Application nos.170/00757/2019 & 170/00758/ 2019. 4
2. The respondent in W.P.No.226627/2020 namely T. Sanjeevayya was appointed as postman on 11.08.1991. On 13.04.1996, he was promoted to the post of Postal Assistant. On 01.09.2008, he was given second financial upgradation i.e., MACP-II. On 02.08.2017, he made a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kalaburagi Division stating that he was entitled to get MACP-III with effect from 13.04.2016. Vide letter dated 02.08.2017, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices informed him that he had already earned two financial upgradations and in order to claim MACP-III, he was required to complete 30 years of service from the date of appointment or 10 years from the last MACP and therefore he was not entitled to claim MACP-III with effect from 13.04.2016. Thereafter, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Application No.170/00758/2019. The Tribunal by its 5 order dated 11.02.2020 allowed his application holding that he was entitled to claim MACP-III.
3. The respondent in W.P.No.226631/2020 namely Bhimaraya V. Kattimani was appointed as postman on 01.12.1991. He was promoted as Postal Assistant on 20.04.1997 and MACP-II was granted to him on 01.09.2008. He too made an application claiming MACP-III with effect from 20.04.2017. His application was rejected giving the same reason as stated above and therefore he too approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No.170/00757/2019. His application was also allowed on 11.02.2020.
4. We have heard Sri Sudhirsingh R. Vijapur, learned ASGI representing the appellants and Sri Shambuling S. Salimath, learned counsel for the respondents.
6
5. Sri Sudhirsingh R. Vijapur submitted that the respondents in both the cases would be entitled to claim MACP-III only after completion of 30 years of service. They availed the benefit of second MACP on 01.09.2008. Therefore the third MACP could be granted only after expiry of 10 years. The respondents claim MACP-III with effect from 13.04.2016 and 20.04.2017 i.e., from the respective dates of their promotion as Postal Assistants. The MACP scheme is so clear that third MACP can be granted only 10 years after MACP-II was granted. This position is made clear by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. R.K. Sharma and others (Civil Appeal No.1579/2021 and connected appeals dated 28.04.2021). Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal in both the cases should be set aside.
7
6. Sri Shambuling Salimath submitted that the Tribunal followed the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of M.P.Joseph vs. Union of India and others (W.P.No.1763/2013) and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Balbir Singh Turn and another (2018) 11 SCC 99. He would argue further that the respondents became entitled to claim MACP-III soon after completion of 20 years from the date of their promotion as Postal Assistants. Therefore, the writ petitions are devoid of merits.
7. We have considered the arguments and perused the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion to hold that the respondents were entitled to claim MACP-III following the judgment of the Bombay High Court in M.P. Joseph and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh. But in the latest judgment of the Supreme 8 Court in the case of R.K. Sharma (supra), the position has been made clear. It is held as below:
"9. In view of the judgment of this Court in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra), the Respondents and other similarly situated employees are entitled for financial upgradation under MACPS only to the next grade pay and not to the grade pay of next promotional post. It is clear from the resolution dated 30.08.2008 that the th recommendation of the 6 Pay Commission was accepted by the Government and was made effective from 01.01.2006 in respect of civilian employees with regard to revised scales of pay and dearness allowances. In so far as the revised allowances other than dearness allowance, recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission were given effect from 01.09.2008. The judgment in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra) clinches the issue. Benefits flowing from ACP & MACP Schemes are incentives and are not part of pay. The resolution dated 29.08.2008 is made effective from 01.09.2008 for implementation of allowances other than Pay and DA which includes financial upgradation under ACP & MACP Schemes. Therefore, the Respondents and other similarly situated officers are not entitled to seek implementation of the benefits of MACPS w.e.f. 01.01.2006 according to the resolution dated 29.08.2008. Moreover, the implementation of MACPS by granting financial upgradation only to the next grade pay in the pay band and not granting pay of the next promotional post w.e.f. 01.01.2006 would be detrimental to a large number of employees, particularly those who have retired. We find force in the submission made by the learned Additional Solicitor General that uniform implementation of MACPS for civilian employees w.e.f. 01.01.2006 would 9 result in large scale recoveries of amounts paid in excess."
8. The above principle is squarely applicable to the facts in the instant cases. Here also the position is that when the respondents were promoted as Postal Assistants after they cleared Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LCDE), the first MACP was set off as against that promotion. In the cadre of Postal Assistants they became entitled to MACP-II only on their completing 10 years of service and it was also granted on the respective dates mentioned above. Therefore, the MACP-III would fall due after completion of another 10 years. In this view, respondent in W.P.No.226631/2020 was entitled to claim MACP-III only 10 years after 01.09.2008 i.e., the date when second MACP was given. So is the case of the respondent in W.P.No.226627/2020. Their claim for MACP-III after completion of 20 years from the date of their promotion as Postal Assistants is 10 untenable. In this view, we find that these two writ petitions deserve to be allowed.
9. Therefore, the writ petitions are allowed, the order dated 11.02.2020 in Original Application nos.170/00757/2019 & 170/00758/2019 of the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE swk