Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Kulwant Singh Son Of Shri Arjan Singh vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 26 September, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH. O.A.NO.223-PB-2011 Date of Decision: September 26th, 2011 CORAM: HONBLE MRS. SHYAMA DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HONBLE MRS. PROMILLA ISSAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Kulwant Singh son of Shri Arjan Singh, aged 56 years, ASPO (Bags), Postal Store Depot, Ludhiana, Punjab. Applicant Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, New Delhi. 2. Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Sandesh Bhawan, Sector 17E, Chandigarh-160017. . Respondents Present: Sh. V.K.Sharma, counsel for the applicant Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for the respondents. O R D E R(ORAL)
HONBLE MRS. SHYAMA DOGRA, M(J)
1. This O.A. is preferred by the applicant against an order dated 15.02.2011 (Annexure A-1) whereby, his claim for grant of MACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008 has been declined on the ground that the applicant would be entitled to this benefit after the expiry of the punishment period of withholding of one increment, which was imposed upon him vide order dated 08.09.2010 (Annexure A-3) on the Charge Sheet issued vide Annexure A-2, dated 19.05.2010.
2. The main contention of the applicant is that since he has completed the requisite number of 30 years service before issuance of the Charge Sheet, he is entitled to the benefit of MACP from the date of his placement in the higher grade as was ordered by the Competent Authority after holding the DPC for this purpose. The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to Annexure A-6 dated 16.12.2010, whereby the date of placement of the applicant in the higher grade is shown as 01.09.2008, subject to grant of this benefit on the expiry of punishment awarded to the applicant i.e. stoppage of two increments.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the D.P.C. has already examined his suitability and eligibility for grant of this benefit from the due date i.e. 01.09.2008, though the order was issued on 16.12.2010. Mere issuance of orders after imposition of penalty on 08.09.2010 cannot deprive him of this benefit as the order of grant of benefit of MACP is made effective retrospectively w.e.f. 01.09.2008.
4. Respondents have apposed this application on the ground that since the order was passed on 16.12.2010 and the applicant had already faced the Charge Sheet and also penalty was imposed upon him on 08.09.2010, therefore, he is entitled to this benefit only after the expiry of the period of punishment. The learned counsel for the respondents has referred to Clause 18 of the MACP Scheme (Annexure R-1) in this regard, which reads as follows:-
Clause 18:- In the matter of disciplinary / penalty proceedings, grant of benefit under the MACPs shall be subject to rules governing normal promotion. Such cases shall, therefore, be regulated under the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and instructions issued thereunder.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record.
6. After careful consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the respondents have wrongly withheld the benefit of grant of MACP to the applicant w.e.f. 01.09.2008 for the reason that till 01.09.2008, admittedly applicant was not facing any disciplinary proceedings and no Charge Sheet had been issued to him. Therefore, merely because the order of grant of benefit of MACP was issued on 16.12.2010, it cannot be a ground for depriving him of his claim which was given retrospectively after examining his suitability and eligibility on the relevant date by the D.P.C. Thus, in our considered opinion, the respondents have misconstrued the provision of Clause 18 of the MACP while withholding this benefit till the period of penalty expires, since on the relevant date, there was nothing adverse pending against the applicant and his suitability has to be adjudged according to his record on that date. Therefore, the impugned order Annexure A-1 dated 15.02.2011 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed and set aside.
7. Resultantly, Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to implement Annexure A-6 while releasing the arrears of higher grade from 01.09.2008 to the applicant as per his entitlement within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say that the pay of the applicant will first have to be refixed in the higher grade w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and the amount of penalty of stoppage of increment will be adjusted in this higher grade and consequently the earlier action of the fixation of pay after 01.09.2008 will become non est. Resultantly, the applicant will be paid the difference of emoluments so arrived at.
8. In terms of these observations and directions as above, this O.A., stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(PROMILLA ISSAR) (SHYAMA DOGRA)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Place: Chandigarh
Dated: 26.09.2011
sv:
1
(OA.No.223/PB/2011 titled KULWANT SINGH VS. UOI & Ors.)