Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Satish Kumar vs M/O Communications on 16 December, 2024
1
Item No. 22 & 23 (C-II)
OA No.2569/2019
with
O.A. No. 2634/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.2569/2019
with
O.A. No. 2634/2019
This the 16th Day of December, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
OA No. 2569/2019
1. Satish Kumar-III S/o Sh. Ram Pratap
MPT-433, P&T Colony Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. Group C Sorting Assistant
Age-57 Years.
2. Suresh Kumar Puri S/o Sh. Ved Prakash Puri
Sub-MACP, Age-59 Yrs.
D-15, Krishna Park, Devli Road, Khanpur, New Delhi, Grp C.
3. Ashwani Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Sarup, H. No. 112/26
Vishal Nagar, Gali No. 1, Rohtak Road, Sonepat, Age-59 Yrs., Group C.
4. Suresh Kumar-I S/o Sh. Lalta Prasad, R/o H.No.110,
Vishal Nagar, Gali No.1, Rohtak Road Sonepat Age-58 Yrs. Group C
1st Floor, Right Side, Gali No. 7, 'A' Block, Bhagwati Garden Extension, Uttam
Nagar, New Delhi
5. Pushkar Singh Negi S/o Sh. Prem Singh Negi Age-56 Yrs. Group C
H. No. 401, Gali No.3, B Block, Baba Colony Burari, Delhi
6. Om Prakash Pandey S/o Sh. Lalta Prasad Age-58 Yrs. Group C
EPT-51, P&T Colony, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi
7. Virender Singh Shakya S/o Sh. Kedar Singh Age-59 Yrs. Group C
H. No. 247, Subhash Park-II, Khora Colony Ghaziabad
8. Vijender Singh Yadav S/o Sh. Atar Singh Age-62 Yrs. Group C
H. No. E-16, Gali No.1, E-Block, Chand Bagh, Delhi
9. Rajinder Kumar Gupta S/o Sh. Shyam Lal Gupta Group C Age 59 years
R/o H. No. 1/10486-B, 3rd Floor, Gali No. 1, Mohan Park, Shahdara, Delhi
2
Item No. 22 & 23 (C-II)
OA No.2569/2019
with
O.A. No. 2634/2019
10. Prabhu Dayal Dwivedi S/o Sh. K.S. Divedi
Age-56 Yrs. Group C
H. No. 537-A, Subhash Park-II, Khora Colony Ghaziabad
11. Ved Pal Singh S/o Sh. Bhawar Singh Age-59 Yrs. Group C
D-23, Janakpuri, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad
12. Desh Pal Singh S/o Sh. Ilam Singh Age-59 Yrs. Group C
C-116 P & T Staff Quarter, Vivek Vihar, Delhi
13. Kanta Madan W/o Sh. M.K. Madan, R/o Kings Burry Appartment, C-3/1003 TDI,
Kundli, Sonepat (Haryana) Age-57 Yrs. Group C
14. Kanchan Talwar W/o Sh. R.K. Talwar Group C Age 57 Years
B-54, Rama Park Near Dwarka Maur Metro Station Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59
15. Gyan Devi Jain W/o Sh Pawan Kumar Jain Age-58 Yrs. Group C
R/o 1/10305, Gali No.1, West Gorakh Park, Delhi
16. Savita Jain W/o Sh. Mukesh Jain Age-59 Yrs. Group C,
R/o A-4/126, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi - 110 085
17. Rakesh S/o Sh. Ganga Singh R/o H. No. C-3/134, Brijpuri, Delhi
Age-57 Yrs. Group C.
18. Suresh Bhardwaj S/o Sh. Om Prakash, H. No. 182
Age-55 Yrs. Group C, 1st Floor, Pocket-9, Sector-21, Rohini, Delhi
...Applicants
(By Advocates: Mr. U. Srivastava with Mr. M.K. Gaur)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary
Ministry of communication, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director General, Govt. of India, Ministry of Comn. & IT
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi
3. The Chief Post Master General, Delhi Circle, New Delhi
4. The Senior Superintendent, Deptt. of Posts, Delhi Sorting Division, Delhi-06
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma and Mr. Rajpal Singh)
3
Item No. 22 & 23 (C-II)
OA No.2569/2019
with
O.A. No. 2634/2019
OA No. 2634/2019
Sangeeta Kaushik W/o Sh. Dinesh Kaushik
R/o 285/18 Heera Nagar, Gurgaon, Haryana
Age 56 Years, Counting of services/PA/Gp. C
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Bal Kishan)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary
Ministry of Communication, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director General, Govt. of India, Ministry of Comn. & IT
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. The Chief Post Master General, Delhi Circle, New Delhi
4. The Senior Superintendent, Deptt. of Posts, Delhi Sorting Division,
Delhi-06
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Sumedha Sharma)
4
Item No. 22 & 23 (C-II)
OA No.2569/2019
with
O.A. No. 2634/2019
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J) Learned counsels for the parties submit that the issue involved in the captioned OAs are identical. The applicants in both the OAs have prayed for similar relief(s) and in support of their respective claims(s), they have pleaded common grounds. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, both the OAs have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present common order.
2. For benefit of writing this order, the OA No. 2569/2019 is taken as a lead case.
3. In OA No. 2569/2019, the applicants have prayed for the following relief(s):-
"a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present OA before Hon'ble Tribunal for the proper adjudication in the matter
(b) Quash and setting aside the impugned orders dt. 23.05.19 [Annexure A/1 (Colly.)] further directing the respondents for counting of services rendered as RTP from the date of initial appointment to regularization that has been extended to the other similarly situated persons in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Tribunal Jabalpur Bench dt. 16.12.86 in TA No. 82 of 1986 and the Bombay Bench vide its order dt. 31.08.10 in OA No. 719/96 as well as the interim orders dt. 10.03.17 of the Hon'ble Hyderabad High Court in WPMP No. 21403/16 in WP No. 17400/16.
(c) To allow the instant OA with consequential benefits and costs.
(d) Any other fit & proper relief may also be granted to the applicants."5
Item No. 22 & 23 (C-II) OA No.2569/2019 with O.A. No. 2634/2019
4. In OA No. 2634/2019, the applicants have prayed for the following relief(s):-
"(a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present O.A. before Hon'ble Tribunal for the proper adjudication in the matter.
(b) Quash & setting aside the impugned orders dt. 18.06.19 (Annexure A/1) read with order dt. 15.05.12 (Annexure A/2) further directing the respondents for counting of services rendered as RTP from the date of initial appointment to regularization that has been extended to the other similarly situated persons in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Tribunal Jabalpur Bench dt. 16.12.86 in TA No. 82 of 1986 and the Bombay Bench vide its order dt.
31.08.10 in OA No 719/96 as well as the interim orders dt. 10.03.17 of the Hon'ble Hyderabad High Court in WPMP No. 21403/16 in WP No. 17400/16.
(c) To allow the instant OA with consequential benefits and costs."
(d) Any other fit & proper relief may also be granted to the applicant.
5. In opposition to the claim of the applicants, the respondents have filed reply and the applicants have filed rejoinder.
6. The undisputed facts in the matter are that the applicants were appointed as Short duty/Sorting Assistants in the year 1983 under Reserved Trained Pool (RTP) scheme and all were regularized on different dates during the period 1986 to 1990. Subsequent to their regularization, the applicants have been extended the benefits of TBOP, 2nd MACP and 3rd MACP but without counting their services rendered under the RTP scheme.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that identical issue came up before various Benches of this Tribunal in different OAs, 6 Item No. 22 & 23 (C-II) OA No.2569/2019 with O.A. No. 2634/2019 including OA No. 823/2020, and the said OAs were allowed by this Tribunal. He further submits that recently one identical OA being OA No. 197/2020 titled Sh. Naresh Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. was allowed by a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide order/judgment dated 18.09.2024.
8. Learned counsels for the applicants submits that the present OA may also be allowed in terms of the order/judgment dated 18.09.2024 in the case of Sh. Naresh Kumar (supra).
9. On the other hand learned counsels appearing for the respondents have though opposed the claim of the applicants, however, they do not dispute that the issue involved in the present case is identical to that in OA No. 197/2020 titled Sh. Naresh Kumar (supra).
10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. We have also perused the pleadings available on record and the order/judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal consisting one of us [Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)] in the case of Sh. Naresh Kumar (supra).
11. In the case of Sh. Naresh Kumar (supra), the undisputed facts were that the applicants were appointed as short duty Postal Assistants between 1983 and 1985 under RTP scheme. The RTP Scheme was introduced in the year 1980 as per which a panel of such 7 Item No. 22 & 23 (C-II) OA No.2569/2019 with O.A. No. 2634/2019 persons was retained, who could not be covered under the number of vacancies declared under the regular appointment as Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant.
12. Admittedly the factual position is the same in the present OA as well.
13. Paras 8 to 9 of the said order dated 18.09.2024 in OA No. 197/2020 read as under:-
"8. In this view of the matter, we reproduce paras 5 to 13 of the order dated 29.08.2024 in OA No. 823/2020 as under:
"5. It is also undisputed that identically placed persons approached the various Benches of this Tribunal from time to time and the Tribunal has allowed the claim of similarly placed persons in those OAs. When the present applicants also preferred representations, the respondents have passed the impugned order(s), which read as under:-
"Subject: Representations regarding counting of Service rendered under RTP Scheme in PA/SA Cadre regarding with reference to the representation Dated NIL regarding counting of service rendered under RTP Scheme. In this connection, Circle Office vide letter No. Staff/RTP Case/2018 Dated 16/18.06.2019 w.r.t Directorate letter No. 18-12/2017-SPB-II Dated 26.042019, whereby it has been clarified that the case specific as such, orders of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana cannot be extended to others. This is for your kind information."
6. Learned counsel for the applicants, in support of their claim as raised in the present OA, has argued that identical issue as involved in the present OA had already been adjudicated by a co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal wherein the benefit of services rendered by RTPs has been extended to similarly placed persons for the purposes of financial benefits and in support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on order/judgment dated 20.09.2023 in OA No. 3466/2019 titled Raksh Pal Singh &Ors. vs. Union of India &Ors., wherein various judgments of co-ordinate 8 Item No. 22 & 23 (C-II) OA No.2569/2019 with O.A. No. 2634/2019 benches and of High Court have been referred and considered, which are as follows:-
"(i) All India Postal Employees Union vs. UOI &Ors. Before the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal in T.A. No.82/1986 decided on 16.12.1986.
(ii) Sanjay Sumantrao Sathe & Ors. vs. UOI &Ors. Before the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.719/1996 and batch decided on 31.08.2010.
(iii) Union of India Vs.The Registrar, CAT, Chennai &Ors.
before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. Nos.34944 and 33298 of 2016 and decided on 24.07.2019.
(iv) Order of Madras Bench of the Tribunal in MA No.708/2018 in OA No.1734/2018 dated 28.03.2019.
(v) Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad dated 27.02.2023 in WP (C) No 17400/2016 titled Union of India &Ors. Vs. V. Ravi Krishna &Ors."
7. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the order of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal referred to in the case of Raksh Pal Singh &Ors. vs. Union of India &Ors. (supra) has attained finality inasmuch as they have either been implemented and/or Writ Petition/Special Leave Petition filed against them has been dismissed. Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned counsel placed on record the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) vide Diary No. 1868/2024 titled Union of India &Ors. vs. V. Ravi Krishna & Ors., whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed the same.
8. Furthermore, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on judgment passed by the Hon'ble ApexCourt in Civil Appeal No. 9849/2014 titled State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others dated 17.10.2014, to contend that once the issue has been decided, it was obligatory at the end of the respondents to extend the benefit to all similarly placed persons and not to compel all the similarly placed persons to approach the Courts and Tribunals.
9. Mr. S.N. Verma, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, by referring to the assertions made in the counter reply has argued that the applicants herein are seeking benefits of their services which were of casual and temporary in nature and such engagement, does not guarantee that they would be regularized as and when their turn comes. In support of his 9 Item No. 22 & 23 (C-II) OA No.2569/2019 with O.A. No. 2634/2019 arguments, he invites our attention to paras 4 and 5 of the counter reply, wherein it has been asserted by the respondents that the Hon'ble Apex Court in CA No. 5739/2005 (UOI vs. Sh. Mathivanan) vide judgment dated 09.06.2006 had held that ad- hoc services rendered in APS by RTP personnel should be counted for the purpose of grant of financial upgradation under Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) Scheme, which was due to the fact that the said scheme did not mention "regular service" as eligibility for grant of financial upgradation under TBOP. It is also asserted by the respondents that Hon'ble Apex Court vide order/judgment dated 01.08.1997 in the case of UOI & Another vs. K. Sivados in CA No. 80-123 of 1996, discussed the case in detail and rejected the grant of productivity link bonus to RTP personnel. He, accordingly, submits that OA is bereft of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.
10. In rejoinder, Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned counsel has invited our attention to a common order in the matter of K.S. Beena Sub Postmaster & Others vs. Union of India represented by Secretary to Government of India & Others passed by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 79 & 119/2011 & batch (Annexure R-1) to contend that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. M. Mathivanan reported in 2006 SCC 57 has also been considered. He submits that not only the judgments but the entire scheme has been considered at length by the Tribunal in the said order. 11. In the case of Raksh Pal Singh (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has considered the order/judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court for State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 17400/2016,whereinparas 8 to 10 read as under:-
"8. The facts of the instant O.A are examined in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telengana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.17400/2016. It is seen that the facts, circumstances and prayer of the applicants have conclusively been decided by the Hon'ble High Courtfor the State of Telengana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.17400/2016. However, the benefit of the same could not be extended to the applicants as the directions were specific and they were not party to the said Writ Petition. It is also noteworthy to mention that once the applicants have preferred their representations in terms of directions passed in OA No.4196/2018 and at the relevant time when the same were considered and decided, the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad was there, the respondents ought to have decided the same in terms of the aforesaid decision 10 Item No. 22 & 23 (C-II) OA No.2569/2019 with O.A. No. 2634/2019 of the Hon'ble High Court. The only reason for non grant of the benefit was that the applicants were not party to that Writ Petition and the same is misplaced. While deciding the Writ Petition, the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana had observed as under:-
"7. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the view that the Tribunal has followed the judgment, dated 16.12.1986, passed in T.A. No.82 of 1986 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalapur Bench, which was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court inS.L.P.No.11313 of 1987, dated 11.05.1988, and even the Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, has directed the respondents therein to follow the judgment of the Jabalpur Bench only. Therefore, there is no confusion at all for the petitioners to file the present Writ Petitions. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned common order passed by the Tribunal."
9. From the above, it is clear that the Hon'bleHigh Court at Telangana was guided by the decision in SLP No.11313/1987 decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 11.05.1988. It is settled preposition of law that in the matter of pay scales, the respondents were obliged to follow the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court followed by the Hon'ble High Courts/Tribunals. The respondents were obliged to extend the benefit to the applicants suo motu. The applicants have been unnecessarily forced to approach the Tribunal.
10. For the reasons quoted hereinabove, the OA is allowed with a direction to the respondents, to extend the benefit to the applicants in terms of the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana in WP No.17400 and 17425 of 2016.The applicants shall be entitled for grant of all consequential benefits flowing there from including MACP and pension, which shall be fixed accordingly, wherever applicable. There shall be no order as to costs."
12. In the case of Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 22 has held as under:-
"22.The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under.11
Item No. 22 & 23 (C-II) OA No.2569/2019 with O.A. No. 2634/2019 22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently."
13. In view of the aforesaid facts binding precedent, the OA deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed with following directions:-
(i) The impugned orders dated 08.01.2020 and 10.01.2020 are quashed and set aside.
(ii) The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court for State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 17400/2016 to the applicants in present OA.
(iii) The applicants shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing there from including upgradation under MACP Scheme, pensionary benefits etc., as applicable.
(iv) The respondents shall comply with the aforesaid directions as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 12weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order."
9. In view of the aforesaid and for parity of reason, the present OA is also allowed with the following orders:
(i) The impugned order dated 20.08.2019 is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court for State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 17400/2016 to the applicants in present OA.
(iii) The applicants shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing therefrom including upgradation under MACP Scheme, pensionary benefits etc., as applicable.12
Item No. 22 & 23 (C-II) OA No.2569/2019 with O.A. No. 2634/2019
(iv) The respondents shall comply with the aforesaid directions as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order."
14. In view of the aforesaid and for parity, the present OAs are allowed with following orders:-
(i) The impugned orders dated 23.05.2019 (in OA No. 2569/2019) and 18.06.2019 read with order dated
15.06.2012 (in OA No. 2634/2019 are quashed and set aside.
(ii) The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court for State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 17400/2016 to the applicants in present OA.
(iii) The applicants shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing therefrom including upgradation under MACP Scheme, pensionary benefits etc., as applicable.
(iv) However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
15. A copy of this order be placed on record of OA No. 2634/2019 also.
(B. Anand) (R. N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /anjali/