Kerala High Court
Superintendent Of Post Offices vs G.Anil Kumar on 10 April, 2015
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan, P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
&
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/20TH MAGHA, 1937
OP (CAT).No. 33 of 2016 (Z)
----------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 856/2012 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 10.04.2015
PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,
CHANGANASSERY DIVISION, CHANGANASSERRY-686 101.
2. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
KOTTAYAM DIVISION, KOTTAYAM-686 001.
3. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NORTH DIVISION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SOUTH DIVISION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036.
5. CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
6. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS
DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001.
7. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI-110 001.
BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENE
RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANT:
------------------------
1. G.ANIL KUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.LATE GOPALAN NAIR
WORKING AS POSTAL ASSISTNAT (MACP II) KANJIRAPPALLY HPO
CHANGANASSERY DIVISION, CHANGANASSERY
RESIDING AT KALARIKKAL HOUSE, MANIMALA PO
PIN-686 543.
2. GEORGEKUTTY SEBASTIAN, AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. THE LATE DEVASSIA V.J.
WORKING AS SUB POSTMASTER, KARUKACHAL
CHANGANASSERY DIVISION, CHANGANASSERY
RESIDING AT VALLOPPILLY HOUSE, NEDUMKUNNAM-686 542.
OP (CAT).No. 33 of 2016 (Z) : 2 :
3. N.SURESHKUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.SRI.M.NARAYANA PILLAI
WORKING AS SENIOR CLERK-IN-CHARGE
MAIL MOTOR SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023
RESIDING AT "SWATHI", KONCHIRAVILA, MANACAUD PO
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009.
4. PREMKUMAR P.C., AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.THE LATE P.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR
WORKING AS POSTAL ASSISTANT (MACP II), KOTTAYAM HPO
RESIDING AT PANGONA HOUSE, ARAPOOKKARA EAST PO
KOTTAYAM-686 008.
5. P.S.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. SRI.P.SUKUMARAN NAIR, WORKING AS SUB POSTMASTER
JAGATHY PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT TC 19886
`VASANTHA MANDIRAM', KESAVA DEV ROAD, MUDAVANMUKAL
POOJAPPURA PO, PIN-695 012.
6. G.SURENDRAN, AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.LATE N.GANGADHARAN NAIR,
WORKING AS POSTAL ASSISTANT, VIKAS BHAVAN PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NORTH DIVISION-695 001
RESIDING AT B33 - POSTAL QUARTERS
PARITHIPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-15.
R BY SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
R BY SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.)
R BY SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
OP (CAT).No. 33 of 2016 (Z)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.856 OF 2012 DT 16-9-2012 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS.
P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DT 5-12-12 FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS
P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DT 6-1-13 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS.
P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 10-4-15 IN OA NO.856 OF 2012 OF THE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL.
/TRUE COPY/
P.S TO JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN & P.V ASHA, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------
O.P(CAT) No.33 of 2016
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2016
JUDGMENT
Surendra Mohan, J.
The Union of India and others, the respondents in O.A No.856 of 2012 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (`C.A.T' for short) challenge the order dated 10.04.2015 by which, an Original Application filed by the respondents, has been allowed. The said order is evidenced herein by Ext.P4. The brief facts required to be noticed are the following.
2. The respondents were initially selected to the Postal Department as a Reserve Trained Pool (`RTP' for short) from which they were intended to be appointed as and when vacancies arose. Later on, they were given appointments to regular vacancies. They had volunteered for being deputed to the Army Postal Service (`APS' for short) to work as Warrant Officers. Accordingly, they were so deputed. Subsequently, as per Annexure-A3 that forms part of Ext.P1, they were discharged O.P(CAT) No.33 of 2016 2 from the Army Postal Service. Their regular appointments to the Postal Department was as per Annexure-A2 dated 28.5.1990. It was thereafter that, they were discharged from the Army Postal Service. Therefore, they joined the service in the Postal Department, without any break in service.
3. On 01.09.2008, the Modified Assured Career Progression (`MACP' for short) Scheme was introduced. As per Annexures 29 to 31, the respondents were granted the benefit of the MACP Scheme w.e.f 1.9.2008. Later on, the said proceedings were cancelled by Annexures A37 to A42 and the benefits granted to them under the MACP Scheme were limited to the period from 9.4.2011. Aggrieved by the said action, the respondents had approached the C.A.T challenging the said proceedings.
4. The claim of the respondents was resisted by the petitioners herein. According to the petitioners, the respondents were not persons who had been regularly appointed. Even their deputation to the Army Postal Service was on ad hoc or temporary basis. For the above reasons, it was contended that they were not entitled to the benefits of the MACP Scheme with effect from the date on which it was introduced. The Tribunal O.P(CAT) No.33 of 2016 3 has, on a consideration of the rival contentions, found that the respondents were entitled to count their tenure with the Army Postal Service also for the purpose of granting all the benefits of the MACP Scheme. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said direction in Ext.P4 order.
5. According to the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, a perusal of Annexure-A1, the proceedings by which the 1st respondent was deputed to the Army Postal Service, shows that, the same was on "purely adhoc and temporary basis". It is contended that, the proceedings by which the other respondents were deputed, were also similarly worded. Therefore, their deputation was purely temporary and on ad hoc basis. Their regular appointment to the Postal Department was only as per Annexure A2 on 28.5.1990. For the above reasons, it is contended that the respondents can be granted the benefits of the MACP Scheme only with effect from the dates of their regular appointment. According to the learned A.S.G.I, the C.A.T has seriously erred in directing that the tenure of the respondents under the Army Postal Service also should be counted for computing the benefits of the MACP Scheme.
6. Heard. This Original Petition comes up before us for O.P(CAT) No.33 of 2016 4 admission. Annexure A5 is the order of appointment of the 2nd respondent to the Army Postal Service. A perusal of Annexure A5 shows that the incumbent therein was appointed as a Warrant Officer in the establishment of the regular Army from 25.1.1985. It is not in dispute that, the appointment orders of the other respondents were also similarly worded. It is clear from Annexure A5 that the appointment of the respondents to the Army Postal Service was on regular basis, though they were borne in the Postal service in the Reserve Trained Pool. It was while they were in the R.T.P that they were deputed to the Army Postal Service. Therefore, their first regular appointment was from the dates on which they were appointed as Warrant Officers in the Army Postal Service. It is not in dispute that they were appointed in the regular service of the Postal Department, without any break in service. We notice that the 1st applicant was regularly appointed as per Annexure A2 on 28.05.1990 and he was discharged from the Army Postal Service as per Annexure A3 only on 27.6.1991. Therefore, the continuous service of the respondents had to be reckoned from the dates on which they were appointed as Warrant Officers in the Army Postal Service. As per the order of the C.A.T, they have been directed to be O.P(CAT) No.33 of 2016 5 granted the benefits of the MACP Scheme counting their service in the Army Postal Service also. We find that the direction issued by the C.A.T is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.
For the above reasons, we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order of the C.A.T, evidenced herein by Ext.P4. The Original Petition is therefore dismissed.
The learned A.S.G.I seeks two months' further time for complying with the directions issued by the C.A.T. The request is accepted. The petitioners are granted two months' time from today to comply with the directions of the C.A.T. Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge Sd/-
P.V.ASHA Judge rtr/ /true copy/ P.S to Judge