Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Tek Chand Son Of Shri Saju Ram vs Union Of India on 29 April, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH. O.A.No.967/HP/2013 Date of Decision : 29.04.2014 Reserved on :23.04.2014 CORAM: HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER HONBLE DR. BRAHM A. AGRAWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Tek Chand son of Shri Saju Ram, age 59 years, c/o Joginder Nagar SPO, District Mandi (HP). Applicant Versus 1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Information & Technology, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Director, Postal Services, HP Circle, Shimla-9. 3. The Senior Office Superintendent of Post Offices, Mandi Division, Mandi (HP). . Respondents Present: Mr. D.R.Sharma, counsel for the applicant Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, counsel for the respondents O R D E R
HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A) This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:-
8 (i) That a direction be issued to the respondents to grant the benefit of BCR Scheme w.e.f. 26.08.2008 when the applicant completed 26 years of service; or MACP w.e.f. 01.01.2009 in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 Grade Pay Rs.4200/- along with all consequential benefits.
(ii) That the applicant be extended the benefit of order dated 17.02.2005 of this Tribunal in OA No.563/PB/2004 titled Om Prakash Bhagat Vs. Union of India & Ors which has further been upheld by the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide judgment dated 14.12.2010, the Supreme Court decision dated 20.07.2007 in SLP (C) No.3210 of 2006. The Honble Himachal Pradesh High Court decision dated 17.12.2009 in CWP No.110 of 2004 titled All India Postal Employees Union Vs. Union of India & Ors. CAT-Chd order in OA No.60/PB/2013 titled Sudarshan Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 18.02.2013 and in OA No.111/HP/2012 titled Prem Singh VS. Union of India & Ors., decided on 21.01.2013 (Annexure A-9 to A-14).
2. Brief facts of the matter are that the applicant joined service as Postal Assistant on 15.02.1982. He was granted the benefit of OTBP Scheme on completion of 16 years of service w.e.f. 26.08.1998 and vide letter dated 10.07.2009, he was granted the benefit of BCR Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.2009 rather than 26.08.2008 when he completed 26 years of service (Annexure A-5).
3. In the grounds for relief, it has been stated that benefit of BCR Scheme becomes due on the date of completion of 26 years service and not w.e.f. 01st January / 01st July as being interpreted by the respondents. This issue is no more res integra in the light of order dated 17.02.2005 of this Tribunal in OA No.563/PB/2004 titled Om Prakash Bhagat Vs. UOI (Annexure A-9) and others which has further been upheld by the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide judgment dated 14.12.2010 (Annexure A-10) and vide Supreme Court decision dated 20.07.2007 in SLP (C) No.3210 of 2006 (Annexure A-11). The same view was further confirmed by the Honble Himachal Pradesh High Court in CWP No.110 of 2004 titled All India Postal Employees Union Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 17.12.2009 (Annexure A-12). Similar orders have also been passed by this Tribunal in OA No.60/PB/2013 titled Sudarshan Kumar Vs. Union of India decided on 18.02.2013 and in OA No.111/HP/2012 titled Prem Singh Vs. UOI & Ors. decided on 21.01.2013, copy of the same are annexed as Annexure A-13 and A-14 respectively. Even otherwise the applicant is entitled to the benefit either of BCR Scheme or MACP Scheme but the respondents have not granted any benefit to the applicant despite the fact that the applicant is eligible for grant of benefit of both BCR and MACP Schemes as he has already completed 26 years service on 26.08.2008 and 30 years service on 26.08.2012.
4. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the applicant was given financial upgradation under BCR Scheme from 01.01.2009 on completion of 26 years of service in Postal Assistant Cadre on 11.09.2008 instead of 26.08.2008 (having dies-non period 15 days i.e. 05.12.2000 to 17.12.2000 = 13 days 14.12.2006 = 1 day and 20.08.2008 = 1 day which was extended by 15 days from 26.08.2008 to reckon 26 years service in PA Cadre on 10.07.2009. In the meantime Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) was introduced vide Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Posts vide No.4-7/(MACPS)/2009-PCC dated 18.09.2009 (Annexure R-1). Para 4 of the Scheme categorically states that the The Schemes of Time Bond One Promotion introduced with effect from 30.11.1983 and the Biennial Cadre Review introduced w.e.f. 01.10.1991 and extended to other categories of staff on subsequent dates shall stand withdrawn w.e.f. 01.09.2008. As a result of this Scheme, the BCR granted was cancelled and recovery of irregular paid amount effected. It is further stated that in compliance of the orders in OA No.1098/HP/2010 dated 15.03.2011 filed by Sh. Tek Chand, the recovery of irregular paid amount was suspended and recovered amount was paid to him. It is further stated that Sh. Tek Chand, had already got three promotions, one as Postman, one as Postal Assistant as well as ITBOP before implementation of MACP Scheme. MACP Scheme provides for three financial upgradations in the whole career which the applicant has already availed. The Scheme of BCR has been withdrawn from 01.09.2008 and MACP Scheme made operative. Hence the applicant is not entitled for BCR or MACP. The action of the Department / respondents has also been upheld by this CAT Bench, Chandigarh in OA No.1098/HP/2010 dated 15.03.2011 (Annexure A-8). This matter has already been decided by the DB of this CAT on 15.03.2011 in the above mentioned OA and now no new facts have arisen.
5. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the facts and grounds taken in the OA and hence the same are not repeated here. The learned counsel pressed that the claim of the applicant was fully covered by the Full Bench Judgment in OA No.563/PB/2004, dated 17.02.2005 (Annexure A-9). This order was upheld by the Honble High Court in CWP No.110 of 2004, decided on 17.12.2009 (Annexure A-12) and also before the Apex Court.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent only pressed the point that the period of 15 days w.e.f. 05.12.2000 to 17.12.2000 (13 days), 14.12.2006 (1 day) and 20.08.2008 (1 day) was treated as dies-non and had to be taken into account while deciding date of completion of 26 years of service in the TA Cadre.
7. Having perused the order dated 17.02.2005 (Annexure A-9) and the order of the High Courts order dated 17.12.2009 (Annexure A-12), it is clear that BCR is to be allowed on the date of completion of 26 years service. Taking into account the period that has been treated as dies-non the applicant completes 26 years service not on 26.08.2008 as claimed by him but on 11.09.2008. However, it is an admitted fact that BCR Scheme was withdrawn w.e.f. 01.09.2008 when the MACP Scheme come into force. Hence there is no merit in the claim of the applicant for upgradation under BCR but he would appear to be eligible for MACPS. Hence the respondents are directed to consider the claim for upgradation under MACPS under the rules and action in this regard may be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order being served upon the respondents. OA is disposed of with these observations. No costs.
(RAJWANT SANDHU) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER.
(DR. BRAHM A. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER Place: Chandigarh Dated: 29.04.2014 sv:
??
??
??
??
5 (OA.No.967/HP/2013 titled (TEK CHAND VS. UOI & ORS.)