Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Bhagwan Singh Chahar vs M/O Communications on 30 January, 2025
1
Item No. 42/C-V O.A. No. 2758/2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 2758/2015
Reserved on:- 08.01.2025
Pronounced on:- 30.01.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
1. Bhagwan Singh Chahar,
Senior Post Master
Aged about 54 years,
S/o Late Sh. Gulbir Singh
R/o Village-Seengani,
Post-Office-Managarhi,
Tehsil-Mant, Distt.Mathura,
U.P. PIN-281201.
2. Vijay Pal Singh,
Aged about 51 years,
Senior Post Master
S/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh
R/o Village & Post
Tehsil Sadabad, Distt.-Mathura,
(Now Maha Maya Nagar)
UP-281308
3. Raja Ram Sharma,
Aged about 53 years,
Senior Post Master
R/o Gadaya Latipur,
P.O.-Farah,
Distt. Mathura, U.P.
...Applicants
(Through Advocate: Mr. U Srivastava)
Versus
1. The Principal Secretary
Ministry of Communication & I.T.
2
Item No. 42/C-V O.A. No. 2758/2015
Department of Posts,
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001
2. Director General of Posts
Postal Service Board
Govt. of India
Ministry of Communication &
Information Technology,
Department of Posts,
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001
3. Director (Staff)
Govt. of India
Ministry of Communication & I.T.
Department of Post
New Delhi-110001
4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Mathura Division,
Department of Post Mathura,
Head Post Office Mathura 201001
5. The Addl. Director General of
Army Postal Services,
AGs Branch,
IHQ (Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence),
West Block No.3,
R.K. Puram,
New Delhi-110066
6. The Commandant,
APS Centre,
Kamptee,
(Maharashtra)
...Respondents
(Through Advocate: Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan)
3
Item No. 42/C-V O.A. No. 2758/2015
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:-
"8 (a) Quash/set aside both the aforesaid impugned orders dt. 12.04.2012 (para 7 only) and dt. 21.11.2013 being patently illegal and unjustified besides being bad in law;
(b) After quashing / setting aside both the aforesaid impugned orders, direct the respondents to grant and release the entire sum of financial upgradation benefits as admissible under MACP scheme by holding the declaring the service rendered by the applicants from the date of joining the regular army service on a regular post;
(c) Pass such further order or orders which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper and in the interest of justice."
2. Narrating the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants, who are retired Army Postal Service personnel, have approached this Tribunal challenging the impugned order dated 21.11.2013, passed by the respondent authority, denying the third financial upgradation to applicants under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS). 2.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicants were initially appointed as Postal Assistants through the Reserved Trained Pool (RTP) scheme and 4 Item No. 42/C-V O.A. No. 2758/2015 later deputed to the Army Postal Service. After serving for several years, they joined the Department of Posts. The government issued clarificatory orders providing that prior service rendered by RTP candidates would be counted for financial upgradation. However, the respondent authority, vide order dated 21.11.2013, denied the third financial upgradation to applicants citing that the applicants were not eligible. The applicants submitted a petition under Rule 118-A(2) of the Postal Manual, challenging the order, but it remains undecided. Hence, the applicants have approached this Tribunal, seeking directions to the respondent authority to grant the third financial upgradation to applicants taking into account their prior service rendered in the Army Postal Service.
2.2. Learned counsel relied upon the decision rendered by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 823/2020 decided on 29.08.2024 in the matter of Dheeraj Pal & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. as well as the decision dated 20.09.2023 rendered by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 3466/2019 titled Raksh Pal Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide Writ Petition No. 6973/2024 titled as 5 Item No. 42/C-V O.A. No. 2758/2015 Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rakesh Pal Singh and Ors.
2.3 Learned counsel submitted that the applicants have placed a challenge to the order dated 12.04.2012 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Posts, which has been addressed to all the Chief Post Masters and Postal Authorities and Annexure- A/2 which is an order passed by the Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices at Mathura on 21.11.2013, where even though the 3rd financial upgradation of Postal Assistant cadre official who has completed 30 years of regular service in the grade has been accorded, however, the said order has not been taken into account while counting the of past services of the applicants.
3. Opposing, the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed entertaining the present O.A. more particularly in light of the fact the impugned order Annexure-A/2 has been passed by Mathura Division for which jurisdiction lies to the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal. In support of his contention, he also stressed to the averments made in the counter reply, more particularly, he highlighted that the case in the nutshell is that all the three applicants 6 Item No. 42/C-V O.A. No. 2758/2015 namely, Shri Bhagwan Singh Chahar, Shri Vijay Pal Singh and Shri Raja Ram Sharma were recruited as Postal Assistant under R.T.P scheme in Mathura Division in the year 1982. Soon after their recruitment, a ban was imposed to fill up the vacancies as per departmental orders. All the R.T.P. recruited for Mathura Division remained out of Job upto the year 1984. In between, all the above three applicants were requested to serve in Army Postal Service and as such they all were directed to attend the office of BRO (Bharti Recruitment Office) Agra for medical etc. After observing all required formalities they were deputed to A.P.S (Army Postal Service) and joined their duties there on 28.03.1984. Later, on arisen of regular/clear vacancy in Mathura Division, they joined there. It has also been averred that on completion of 20 years of regular service in Postal Assistant cadre Shri Vijay Pal Singh & Shri Raja Ram Sharma were given 2nd MACP w.e.f. 25.11.2008 & 16.04.2009 respectively. The officials were not found eligible for 3rd MACP as per D.G. Post New Delhi letter No. 44-1/2011-SPB II dated 12.04.2012. The MACP is granted to the officials on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service. Since the appointment as R.T.P., P.A. /S.A. is only on ad- hoc basis and regular appointment was given on later 7 Item No. 42/C-V O.A. No. 2758/2015 stage, the service from date of enrollment in A.P.S. (Army Postal Service) was not counted for the purpose of grant of MACP. Under the said order of promotion under MACP scheme these officials made representation to the higher authority i.e. P.M.G. Agra which was not accepted in view of available ruling vide P.M.G. Agra memo No. STA/43- 6/45-2014 dt. 07.08.14. Against the said order of R.O. Agra they all have approached before this Hon'ble Tribunal.
3.1 Hence, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the present O.A. is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of inappropriate jurisdiction which as per him is Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal and not Principal Bench at New Delhi 3.2 On merits as well, learned counsel relied on the aforesaid submissions and preliminary submissions made in the brief facts of the case. He relied upon the fact that the applicants were not found eligible for third Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) as per D.G. post New Delhi letter No 44-1/2011-SB-II dated 12.04.2012, as it is very clear that "the service rendered under Reserve Trained Pool scheme by the personnel prior to their regular appointment as Postal Assistant / 8 Item No. 42/C-V O.A. No. 2758/2015 Sorting Assistant cannot be counted for promotion, seniority and grant of Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP)." The service rendered by the applicants as Reserve Trained Pool P.A. /S.A. in Army Postal Service is only on ad-hoc basis and the following three applicants were given appointment as regular Postal Assistant in Mathura Division as and when the regular vacancy on their term was raised i.e.
1. Shri Bhagwan Singh Chahar on 20.01.1988
2. Shri Raja Ram Sharma on 20.01.1988
3. Shri Vijay Pal Singh on 25.11.1988 and these were the only dates on the basis of which the benefits of IInd MACP in r/o these applicants were determinate.
3.3. It has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the respondents that decision rendered in the matter of Rakesh Pal Singh (supra) is entirely as in the said case the service as Trained Pool was rendered from 1983 to 1989, whereas in the present case the applicants were enrolled in Army Postal Service as warrant officers on 28.03.1984 as mentioned in O.A. Subsequently they have been discharged from APS to join their civil parent Division. Since the appointment as RTP PA/SA is on 9 Item No. 42/C-V O.A. No. 2758/2015 adhoc basis and regular appointment was given on later stage, the service from date of enrollment in APS was not counted for the purpose of grant of MACP.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case.
5. ANALYSIS :
5.1. The issue involved in present matter has been adjudicated upon by different Benches of this Tribunal wherein the benefit of service rendered under the RTP as Temporary Short Duty Sorting Assistant has been extended to the applicants therein for the purpose of various financial benefits Like MACP.
5.2 The respondent's cannot defeat the claim of the applicants by contending that the impugned order Annexure-A/2 has been passed by Mathura Division for which jurisdiction lies to the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal.
5.3. Learned counsel for the respondents stressed on averments made in the counter reply, more particularly, that all the applicants were recruited as Postal Assistant under R.T.P scheme in Mathura Division in the year 1982. Soon after their recruitment, a ban was imposed to 10 Item No. 42/C-V O.A. No. 2758/2015 fill up the vacancies as per departmental orders. All the R.T.P. recruited for Mathura Division were remained out of Job upto the year 1984. In between all the above three applicants requested to serve in Army Postal Service and as such they all were directed to attend the office of BRO (Bharti Recruitment Office) Agra for medical etc. After observing all required formalities they were deputed to A.P.S (Army Postal Service) and joined their duties there on 28.03.1984. Later on, arisen of regular/clear vacancy in Mathura Division, they joined there. It has also been averred that on completion of 20 years of regular service in Postal Assistant cadre Shri Vijay Pal Singh & Shri Raja Ram Sharma were given 2nd MACP w.e.f 25.11.2008 & 16.04.2009 respectively. The officials were not found eligible for 3rd MACP as per D.G. Post New Delhi letter No. 44-1/2011-SPB II dated 12.04.2012. The MACP is granted to the officials on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service.
Since the appointment as R.T.P. P.A./S.A. is only on adhoc basis and regular appointment was given on later stage, the service from date of enrollment in A.P.S. (Army Postal Service) was not counted for the purpose of grant of MACP. Under the said order of promotion under MACP scheme these officials made representation to the higher 11 Item No. 42/C-V O.A. No. 2758/2015 authority i.e. PMG Agra which was not accepted in view of available ruling vide PMG Agra memo No. STA/43- 6/45-2014 dated 07.08.2014. Against the said order of R.O. Agra they have approached this Tribunal. 5.4. There is fallacy in the arguments put-forth by the learned counsel for the respondents that order dated 07.08.14 has been passed by the Authorities which do not come within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal as they have not taken note of the fact that the premises on which the said order has been issued was primarily on instruction is vide D.G. Post New Delhi in letter No. 44-1/2011-SPB II dated 12.04.2012. 5.5. Identical issues have already been dealt with and addressed by the various Benches of Tribunal including a decision rendered by this Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.823/2024 titled " Dheeraj Pal and ors Vs UOI and ors" decided on 29.8.2024.
5.6. It is noticeable that vide record of proceeding dated 15.5.2024, the Hon'ble High Court in WP (c) No.6973/2024 ( Rakesh Pal Singh ) (Supra), the learned counsel for the petitioners (UOI) prayed for time to obtain instructions as to whether similarly placed employees have been granted the benefits of their temporary service 12 Item No. 42/C-V O.A. No. 2758/2015 under the Reserved Trained Pool Scheme while considering their claims under the ACP and MACP Schemes. Thereafter, the decision rendered in Rakesh Pal Singh (supra) have been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (c) No.6973/2024 on 27.5.2024. 5.7. In view of the above, this Tribunal cannot take a divergent view in the matter when similarly placed employees have been granted the benefits of their temporary service under the Reserved Trained Pool Scheme while considering their claims under the ACP and MACP Schemes irrespective of the facts that in the said case ( Rakesh Pal Singh ) the service as Trained Pool was rendered from 1983 to 1989.
5.8. Further, larger issue is not the timeline of the such temporary service period so rendered but whether such period ought be counted for considering their claims under the ACP and MACP Schemes which has already been decided in favor of employees. There cannot be an artificial distinction which would result in discriminating between same group thereby creating a class within the class. Moreover, the present OA has also been pending since year 2015, i.e., much prior to OA No. 3466/2019 and OA No.823/2020.
13
Item No. 42/C-V O.A. No. 2758/2015
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. In view of the above analysis, Para 7 of the impugned order dated 12.4.2012 is quashed and set aside. Further the impugned order dated 21.11.2013 is also quashed and set aside.
6.2. The respondents are directed to accord 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.
6.3. The applicants shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing therefrom including upgradation under MACP Scheme, pensionary benefits etc., as applicable. 6.4. 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 certified copy of this Order.
6.5. The OA is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/SG/