Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mam Chand vs M/O Communications on 11 November, 2022
1
Item No. 47 (C-III) O.A. No. 112/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 112/2017
This the 11th day of November, 2022
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
Mam Chand, aged 59 years,
S/o. Sh. Sewa Ram,
Working as Postal Assistant,
Head Office, Gurgaon (Haryana)
R/o. H. No. 1682, Street No. 7,
Laxman Vihar-II, Gurgaon ...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Communication,
Department of Post,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Gurgaon Division,
Gurgaon (Haryana). ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. A. K. Singh)
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J) This OA has been filed questioning the action of the respondents in not extending the 2nd MACP financial upgradation to the applicant on the ground 2 Item No. 47 (C-III) O.A. No. 112/2017 that he has already got first and second regular promotion to the post of Postal Assistant and third financial upgradation. The applicant herein seeks a direction to the respondents to grant 2nd financial upgradation to him with all consequential benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant herein joined the respondent organization as Extra Department Agent and was subsequently promoted as Postman on 12.07.1991 on direct recruitment basis. He got promoted as Postal Assistant in March 1993 by clearing LDC Examination and since then he has been working on the same post.
3. It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant in spite of giving representation in this behalf the respondents did not grant the said benefit of financial upgradation to the applicant. Aggrieved, the OA is filed.
4. The contentions of the applicant are that similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Jodhpur Bench in OA 382/2011, which was decided 3 Item No. 47 (C-III) O.A. No. 112/2017 on 22.05.2012 holding that the promotion earned by a Group D/Postman to the post of Postman/Postal Assistant cannot be treated as a promotion in the hierarchy and as such, cannot deny the financial upgradation on that count. Following the same, Hon'ble Madras Bench of this Tribunal decided OA No. 1088/2011, on 14.03.2013 and the said order was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court at Madras in WP No. 30629/2014 filed by the Department and the matter was further carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP No. 4848/2016, which was also dismissed vide order dt. 16.08.2016. Review Petition No.1939/2017 in SLP No. 4848/2016 filed by the Union of India was also dismissed on 13.09.2017. The applicant further contend that when the Government accepts the recommendations of the expert body such as Pay Commission, the substitution of the terms and conditions by executive power is arbitrary as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Diary No. 3744/2016, vide order dt. 08.12.2017. That, the action of the respondents in not granting financial 4 Item No. 47 (C-III) O.A. No. 112/2017 upgradation to the next Grade Pay under MACP ignoring the promotion of the post of Postal Assistant pursuant to the LDCE, which does not fall under the hierarchy as contemplated under ACP/MACP Scheme is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has handed over a copy of various relied upon decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal which are reproduced below :-
"1. OA No. 800/2018 - Y. Venkateshwarlu & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. decided on 12.10.2020.
2. OA No. 1023/2014 - Siba Prasad Das Vs. UOI & Ors. decided on 07.11.2019.
3. OA No. 93/2019 & batch - Natvarbhai S. Makwana Vs. UOI & Ors. decided on 17.09.2019"
5. The respondents filed a reply statement opposing the OA. In the reply statement, the facts as stated by the applicant are not disputed. The respondents have given the service particulars of the applicant from his initial appointment till the latest promotion, etc. Further they have stated that the applicant has 5 Item No. 47 (C-III) O.A. No. 112/2017 already got first and second regular promotion to the post of Postal Assistant and third financial upgradation. Hence, he cannot be granted 2nd Financial upgradation.
6. Heard both the learned counsel, perused the pleadings on record and appreciated the legal position.
7. In view of the decisions cited above, we are of the view that this case is squarely covered by the order of Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA 800/2018, as confirmed by the higher judicial fora, as referred above. Hence, this OA is also liable to be disposed on the same lines.
8. In the result, the respondents are directed to consider granting 2nd MACP Financial Upgradation to the applicant from the date due and consequently, re- fix the pay and allowances of the applicant with consequential benefits. Arrears to be paid, if any, to be restricted to a period of 3 years prior to the date of filing the OA as per Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment 6 Item No. 47 (C-III) O.A. No. 112/2017 in Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh in Civil Appeal Nos. 5151-5152 of 2008 at Para 5. Time period allowed to implement the order is 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. With the above direction, the OA is disposed of, with no order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (Ashish Kalia)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/