Karnataka High Court
The Union Of India And Ors vs Shri Basanna Nayak S/O Manappa on 20 September, 2016
Bench: B.S Patil, B.V.Nagarathna
WP No.200807/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION No.200807/2016 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
1. The Union of India
Rep by its Secretary,
Department of Post,
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Post Master General
N.K Region,
Dharwad - 580 001.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Post
Kalaburagi Division,
Kalaburagi - 585 101.
... PETITIONERS
(By Shri Jairaj K. Bukka, ASGI)
AND:
Shri Basanna Nayak
S/o Manappa,
Aged 57 years,
WP No.200807/2016
2
Occ: Sub Postmaster,
Shorapur Town SO,
Yadgir Head Office,
R/o Thinthani Village,
Shorapur Taluk,
Kalaburagi - 585 101.
... RESPONDENT
(By Shri G.G. Chagashetti, Advocate)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in nature
of certiorari or any other writ or direction quashing the
impugned order vide CAT in OA No.361/2014 dated 9th
October 2015 of which is at Annexure 'L' passed by CAT
Bangalore, etc.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, B.S. Patil J., made the following:
ORDER
1. Order dated 09.10.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench is called in question in this writ petition filed by the Union of India.
2. The Tribunal while allowing the application filed by the respondent - Basanna Nayak has held that he was appointed initially to Group-D post in the year 1983 WP No.200807/2016 3 and was later on appointed again in the cadre of Postman in 1987 and thereafter based on a limited competitive examination conducted in 1988 was appointed as Postal Assistant with effect from 23.03.1989. Therefore, even though he was given TBOP benefit on completion of 16 years of service in the cadre of Postal Assistant in August, 2005, having regard to the long service rendered by him without promotional avenues, he was entitled for second financial upgradation under MACP with effect from 13.09.2009.
3. Indeed the authorities had rightly extended to the applicant this benefit vide order dated 02.08.2010 Annexure-A5. But, the said benefit was sought to be withdrawn on 20.01.2014 as is evident from Annexure- A10. While doing so, the petitioner - authority namely Senior Superintendent of Post, Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga reckoned the post of Postman and the post of Postal Assistant to which petitioner was appointed as WP No.200807/2016 4 promotional posts and treated him as having been duly promoted as Postman and Postal Assistant on 12.10.1987 and 30.07.1989 respectively. Therefore, on the process of reasoning that applicant had already been given two promotions in his career apart from the benefit of TBOP on 13.08.2005, he was held not entitled for financial upgradation in MACP on completion of 20 years of his service as Postal Assistant.
4. This order was challenged by the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal, as already referred to above, has held that appointment of petitioner as Postman on 12.10.1987 was not by way of promotion. It has also further held that further appointment of the petitioner as Postal Assistant on 30.07.1989 was by way of direct recruitment after conducting competitive examination. Therefore, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that applicant had been rightly extended benefit of career WP No.200807/2016 5 progression and there was absolutely no justification for withdrawing/revoking the same.
5. The Tribunal has also referred to similar orders passed earlier in similar circumstances by different Benches which were challenged before the High Court of Rajasthan in Civil Writ Petition No.11336/2012. The High Court of Rajasthan has upheld the said orders. In para-12 of the impugned order the Tribunal has referred to the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court. Again the High Court of Delhi has passed another order in WP (C) 4131/2014 in the case of Union of India and others vs. Shakeel Ahmed Burney wherein also similar view taken by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal has been upheld by the High Court vide its order dated 05.08.2014.
6. The contention now advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that appointment of petitioner for the post of Postman and WP No.200807/2016 6 Postal Assistant were not by way of direct recruitment but were by way of promotion. We are unable to appreciate this contention. Indeed as per Annexure-A2 order where under appointment has been made to the cadre of Postman it is clearly mentioned that the appointment formalities like verification of caste and educational qualifications etc. shall be completed as usual before issuance of orders of appointment. There is no mention made with regard to promotion of the respondent to the post of Postman. A reading of Annexure-A2 discloses that it was not a case of promotion but was a case of direct recruitment.
7. In so far as appointment to the post of Postal Assistant, the findings of the Tribunal are very clear inasmuch as the recruitment was made after conducting a limited departmental competitive examination and that there was nothing to show that WP No.200807/2016 7 respondent was promoted from the cadre of Postman to the next cadre of Postal Assistant.
8. Hence, we agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal. We do not find any illegality or error in the findings recorded and conclusion reached by the Tribunal. Therefore, there being no merit in this writ petition, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE swk