Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
V.S. Gandhiji vs Union Of India And Three Others Against ... on 12 November, 2008
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH HYDERABAD Original Application No. 828 and 829 of 2005 Date of Order : 12.11.2008 Between: V.S. Gandhiji ... Applicant in OA.828/2005 K.V.Satyanarayana ... Applicant in OA.829/2005 And 1. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, (SSP for short), Bhimavaram Division, Bhimavaram 534 201. 2.The Postmaster General (PMG for short), Vijayawada Region, Vijayawada 520 010. 3.The Chief Postmaster General (CPMG for short), A.P. Circle, Hyderabad 500 001. 4. The Union of India rep. by the Director General, Dept. of Posts (DG (P) for short), Dak Bhavan, New Delhi 110 001. ... Respondents in both the OAs Counsel for the applicants ... Mr.T.V.V.S. Murthy Counsel for the respondents ... Mrs. K. Rajitha, Addl.CGSC. in OA.828/2005 Mr.G.Jayaprakash Babu Sr CGSC in OA.829/2005 CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.Lakshmana Reddy ... Vice Chairman Hon'ble Mr. R.Santhanam ... Member (Admn.) ORAL ORDER
{As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.Lakshmana Reddy, Vice Chairman } Heard Mr. T.V.V.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the applicants in both the OAs and Mrs.K.Rajitha, learned standing counsel for the respondents in OA.828/2005 and Mr.G.Jayaprakash Babu, senior standing counsel for the respondents in OA.829/2005. As the issue involved in both the OAs is one and the same, we proposed to dispose of the same by a common order.
2. The grievance of the applicants in both thses OAs is that though they have passed LSG examination for 1/3rd quota vacancies for the year 1979 and 1980 held on 15.02.1981 they were not given LSG promotion towards that quota of vacancies for the year 1979 and 1980 and they were given TBOP promotion on 30.11.1983 and promotion to norm based LSG on 01.07.1986 and that had they been granted promotion to norm based LSG towards 1/3rd LSG examination quota of vacancies of the year 1979-1980 they would have got the norm based promotion to LSG, HSG II and I long prior to the dates on which they were subsequently given promotions to norm based LSG posts, HSG II and HSG I on adhoc basis. The applicants sought for a direction to promote them to LSG grade against the 1/3rd quota which arose in 1980 or 1981 or thereafter with retrospective date of his entitlement on the basis of their success in the examination held on 15.02.1981 and to give subsequent promotions to HSG-II and HSG-I by extending benefit of the order dated 13.09.2007 in OA. 1395/2007 filed as Annexure-XXIV. This is an alternative amended prayer. Earlier the applicants had sought for a direction to regularise them from 31.03.2001 in HSG-I grade notionally with all consequential service and monetary benefits such as arrears of pay allowances, pension, commuted value of pension, DCRG and cash equallent to leave salary due to him and also to refund the amounts already recovered from them. So far as the earlier prayer is concerned the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore other OAs of this nature are adjourned sine-die and hence this Tribunal need not go into that aspect. But the learned counsel submitted that even on the amended ground based on the orders passed by this Tribunal dated 13.09.2007 in OA.1395/2003 the applicants are entitled for the relief as it is a covered matter. Learned counsel relied upon the orders of this Tribunal dated 13.09.2007 passed in OA.1395/2003, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-XXIV at page-63 filed along with the application. We have perused the said orders and found that the applicant in that OA prayed for a declaration that the action of the respondents in denying promotion to the applicant under 1/3rd quota of LSG even though the applicant therein was qualified, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the rules and also for consequential direction to the respondents to permit the applicant therein under 1/3rd quota giving him the benefit of seniority in terms of the judgement of this Tribunal in OA.622/90 dated 01.12.1993 and also for further direction to the respondents to regulate all further promotions to HASG-II and HSG-I on the basis of the revised seniority in accordance with the judgement of this Tribunal in OA.622/90 dated 01.12.1993. The applicant therein also pleaded that he appeared for qualifying examination for LSG against 1/3rd quota vacancies of 1979-80 held on 15.02.1981 and has been declared as passed in the examination as per letter dated 04.09.1981 issued by the 3rd respondent. In the instant case also the applicant appeared for the very same examination on 15.02.1981 and they have passed in the examination as is evident from Annexure 1 dated 09.09.1981 issued by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhimavaram i.e.the 1st respondent. Therefore, the applicants herein in these 2 OAs stand on the same footing as that of the applicants in OA.1395/2003. In the said OA 1395/2003 this Tribunal after considering the contentions raised on behalf of both sides, passed the following order :
As regards the merits of the case, during the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant cited an Order of the Madras Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 26.03.1987 in T.A.No.747/1986 (Original Petition NO.1619/1985 of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court) in the case of Shri C.M.John and two others Vs. Union of India and three others against which an SLP was filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed on 11.1.1989. The applicant has also placed a reliance on the decision of the Ernakulam Bnch of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 5.9.1997 in OA.1309/95 in the case of V.S.Babu and two others Vs. The Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram and four others. On a perusal of the above, we find that the Hon'ble Madras Bench has decided in their favour to the effect that on the basis of having qualified in the 1981 examination for the 1/3es quota vacancies, the applicants in the said case were entitled to the vacancies for the 1/3rd quota which arose before and after 1981 till 29.11.1983 in accordance with Para 272-A of P&T Manual Volume IV. The Hon'ble Bench had also adversely commented upon the matter in which the respondents have interpreted the one time bound promotion scheme by not only giving retrospective effect of the scheme but also by presuming that such scheme replaces the 1/3rd quota to be filled through the qualifying tests of selection. Since the respondents' letter dated 17.12.1983 had made it abundantly clear that the scheme of one time bound promotion was to take effect from 30.11.1983, the Hon'ble Bench has decided that the 1/3rd promotion vacancies accruing before 30.11.1983 should not be denied to the petitioners in the said case. We find that the same issue has arisen in the subject case also. Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to be considered for promotion against the 1/3rd quota vacancies on the basis of the examination held in 1981. Similarly, in the cited decision of the Ernakulam Bench also the Hon'ble Tribunal had directed the respondents in that case to promote the applicants in the said case to the LSG against 1/3rd of vacancies which existed in the year 1981 and which arose thereafter with effect from the respective dates of their entitlement on the basis of their success in the examination held on 15.2.1981 with all consequential benefits accruing to the applicants therein. The cited case of OA.62/90 also is in favour of the applicant. We find that the present case falls in the same category and we apply the ratio of the above decision and deem it fit to issue a direction to the respondents herein to promote the applicant to the LSG grade against 1/3rd quota of vacancies which existed in the year 1981 and which arose thereafter with effect from the respective date of his entitlement on the basis of his success in the examination held on 15.2.1981 with all consequential benefits viz., fixation of pay and disbursement of arrears of pay and allowances etc. Similarly, the applicant also succeeds as regards his prayer for promotion to HSG Gr-II and Gr-I in accordance with the clarifications dated 12.11.2002 as also 28.1.2003. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
In the light of the above discussions, the OA is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.
3. The said orders of this Tribunal have been challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble A.P.High Court by way of W.P.2379/2008 and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 17.03.2008 as is evident from the copy of the orders of the High Court filed by the counsel for the applicant. Therefore the orders of this Tribunal in OA.1395/2003 have became final. As the applicants in the present OAs stand on the same footing as that of the applicant in O.A.1395/2003 the benefits of the orders of this Tribunal in O.1395/2003 dated 13.09.2007 are to be extended to the applicants in both these OAs. If the said benefit is extended the applicants are entitled for the amended relief as it is a covered case. So far as the other grounds on which the applicants claim the original relief No.1 and 3 are concerned we leave it open as the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
4. In the result the OA is allowed directing the respondents to promote the applicants in both the OAs to the LSG grade against the 1/3rd quota of vacancies which existed in 1981 and arose thereafter with effect from the dates of their entitlement on the basis of their success in the examination held on 15.02.1981 with all consequential benefits viz., fixation of pay and disbursement of pay and allowances etc. and with further direction to give them promotion to HSG-II and HSG-I in accordance with the clarifications dated 12.11.2002 as also 28.1.2003. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. Accordingly both the OAs are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
( R.SANTHANAM) (P.LAKSHMANA REDDY) MEMBER (ADMN.) VICE CHAIRMAN Dated : 12th November, 2008 (Dictated in Open Court)