Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Sri A.V. Ramana vs M. Mathivanan Dated 9.6.2006 Reported ... on 21 January, 2009
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH HYDERABAD O.A. 382/2008 Date of order: 21-01-2009 Between: 1. Sri A.V. Ramana Sorting Assistant, O/o. Head Record Office, Railway Mail Service-V Division, Visakhapatnam-4. 2. V. Jagannadham, Sorting Assistant, O/o. Head Record Office, RMS-V Division, Visakhapatnam-4. 3. B. Indu Kumar, Office Assistant, O/o. Superintendent RMS V. Division, Visakhapatnam-13. 4. K.N. Kashyap, Office Assistant, O/o. Post Master General, Visakhapatnam-13. 5. K. Vijaya Kumar, Sorting Assistant, Sub Record office, Eluru. 6. A. Visweswara Rao, Sorting Assistant, Sub Record Office, RMS, Srikakulam Road A.P. ... Applicants A N D 1. Union of India, rep. by its Director General, Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 1. 2. The Chief Postmaster General, A.P. Circle, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3. The Postmaster General, Visakhapatnam Region, Visakhapatnam. 4. The Superintendent, Railway Mail Service, V. Division, Visakhapatnam. ... Respondents Counsel for the applicants : Mr. Krishna Devan Counsel for the respondents : Mr. M. Brahma Reddy, Sr. P.C. for C.G C O R A M : THE HON'BLE MRS. BHARATI RAY, MEMBER (J) THE HON'BLE MR. HRIDAY NARAIN,MEMBER(A) O R D E R
(Per Hon'ble Mrs. Bharati Ray, Member (J) This application has been filed by the applicant seeking for the following reliefs:
Set aside the impugned order No. B1/OTP/GENL/VIII dated 4.1.2008 passed by R-4 under the directions of R-3, by declaring the same as having passed arbitrarily, discriminatorily, non application of mind, non speaking order, unjust and unsustainable being illegal and violation of Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to count the service rendered as Sorting Assistant in the APS from for the purpose of applying the TBOP scheme to the applicant and to revise the date of promotion under TBOP and to grant consequential benefits such as pay fixation, arrears and seniority etc. and pass such other or further orders.
2. There are six applicants in this O.A.
3. It is the case of the applicants that they were selected as per the then Recruitment Rules for the post of Sorting Assistants in the first half year of 1982 in Visakhapatnam RMS - V Division, AP Circle. However, for want of sufficient vacancies in the Division at that time, the names of the applicants were kept in the Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) list. The applicants responded to the offer emanated from the then RMS authorities and volunteered to go and work in Army Postal Service (APS) as Sorting Assistants. On being selected, they joined the APS a Sorting Assistants on the following dates:
1. A.V. Ramana Rao 18.8.1983
2. V. Jagannadham 02.11.1983
3. B. Indu Kumar 03.02.1987
4. K.N. Kashyap 03.02.1987
5. Vijaya Kumar 18.11.1983
6. A. Visweswara Rao 20.02.1987
4. Subsequently, when regular vacancies arose in RMS Division, the 4th respondent in his Memo No. B1/RTP/RECTT/Recruitment/GENL dated 12.9.1989 and 6.12.1989 had issued regular appointment as Sorting Assistants in RMS V Division in civil side in respect of the following applicants respectively.
1. A. Visweswara Rao 12.9.89 6.12.1989
1. A.V. Ramana Rao
2. V. Jagannadham
3. B. Indu Kumar
4. K.N. Kashyap
5. Vijaya Kumar.
5. However, the respondents in para-5 of their counter reply have given the details of the regular appointment of the applicants as under :
1. Sri A.V. Ramana was discharged from the APS on 25.7.1992
2. Sri V. Jagannadham-I was discharged from APS on 18.5.2000
3. Sri B. Indu Kumar was discharged from the APS on 18.4.1997
4. Sri K.N. Kashyap was discharged from the APS on 19.12.1992
5. Sri K. Vijay Kumar was discharged from the APS on 01.9.1992
6. Sir A. Visweswararao was discharged from the APS on 24.10.92.
It is further contended by the applicants that they were discharged by the APS and posted to civil side in RMS V Division in the year 1992 and since then working under the jurisdiction of the 4th respondent and continuing as such.
6. In the year 1983, the Department of Posts promulgated a Time Bound Promotion scheme by Memo dated 17.12.1983 to give next higher grade to the employees in Group 'C' and 'D' who had put in 16 years of service and the said scheme came into effect from 30.11.1983. The Superintendent of RMS V Division, Visakhapatnam, vide Memo. dated 4.01.2006 have ordered the promotion/financial upgradation of the applicants to the TBOP cadre on the following dates taking the date of entry in the P.A. cadre after adding 16 years of service in the Sorting Assistant cadre. It is the specific case of the applicants that, had the respondents counted the service rendered in the APS for the purpose of 16 years of service, the applicants would have been given the promotion/financial upgradation in TBOP scheme much earlier to the dates on which promotion given to the applicants. By not doing so, the applicants were denied the benefit of service rendered in the Army Sorting Service as Sorting Assistants.
1. A.V. Ramana Rao 2.1.2006
2. V. Jagannadham 23.12.2005
3. B. Indu Kumar 24.12.2005
4. K.N. Kashyap 26.12.2005
5. Vijaya Kumar 30.6.2005
6. A. Visweswara Rao 28.6.2005
7. Similarly situated officials who were so denied the benefit approached CAT, Madras Bench in OA No. 1094/2001 which was allowed. In the said O.A. before the CAT, Madras Bench, the applicants had sought for a direction on the respondents to give the benefit of TBOP for the purpose of enhancement of salary taking into account the service rendered by them as Postal Assistants as Warrant Officers in the APS. In the said case, the respondents therein rejected the prayer of the applicants on the ground that there is no provision in the service rules to count the service in the APS as regular service. The Tribunal, however, did not accept such contention of the respondents and has categorically said that the instructions under the TBOP Scheme did not say that the service in the APS cannot be counted for the purpose of TBOP Scheme and has allowed the O.A. by directing the respondents to extend the benefit of TBOP to the applicants duly taking into account the service rendered by them in the APS. The judgment of the Madras Bench has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras which was further confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. M. Mathivanan dated 9.6.2006 reported in SCs Service Law Judgments 2006(2)329. The applicants in the case in hand submitted representations requesting the Secretary, Ministry of Communications, New Delhi, to extend the benefit of the service rendered by them in the APS in the Sorting Assistants' post for the purpose of counting 16 years for being promoted under the TBOP Scheme 1983. The respondent No.4 vide his Memo dated 4.1.2008 under the direction of the Respondent No.3 informed the applicants that the service rendered in APS could not be considered for inclusion of service rendered in APS while computing 16 years of service for financial upgradation under the TBOP Scheme. That is how the respondents rejected the claim of the applicants.
8. Questioning the said Memo dated 4.1.2008 of the respondent No.4, the applicants have approached this Tribunal seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. A copy of the impugned memo dated 4.1.2008 is at Annexure/A-1 at page 11 of the O.A. The contents of the impugned order dated 4.1.2008 are extracted herein below :
"The Directorate letter no. 44-59-SPG-II dated 31.7.01 stipulates that, the claims for counting the service rendered prior to regular appointment also for eligibility for the benefit of TBOP cannot be agreed to. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 1.8.97 in civil Appeal No. 80-123 of 1996 Union of India vs. K.N. Sivadas & Others has also ordered that any service rendered prior to regular appointment in the cadre cannot count for benefit.
C.O. letter no. ST/6-1/KNL/2003 dated 3.3.03 stipulates that, adhoc service rendered should not be reckoned for upgradation under TBOP/BCR Scheme.
In view of the above orders, it is intimated by R.O. that your case could not be considered for inclusion of service rendered in APS while computing 16 years of service for financial upgradation under TBOP Scheme. "
9. The respondents have contested the application by filing the counter reply. They have reiterated the contentions made in the impugned letter in the counter reply and have said that the applicants are not eligible for the benefit of counting RTP service rendered in APS while computing the 6 years of service for financial upgradation under the TBOP Scheme as per Directorate's letter dated 4.12.1991, 31.7.2001 and decision of the judgment of the Apex court dated 1.8.1997 in C.A. No. 80-123 of 1996 in the case of Union of India vs. K.N. Sivadas & Others.
10. In regard to the judgment dated 9.6.2006 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Mathivanan, the respondents have stated that the judgment was related to some other case and no other direction/order was issued from the Tribunal for counting the service rendered in APS by completing 16 years of qualifying service for promotion/financial upgradation under the TBOP Scheme. Therefore there is no violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. However, they have not said that applicants are not similarly situated with that of the petitioners before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (Applicants before the Madras Bench in OA 1094 of 2001).
11. We have heard Mr. Krishna Devan learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. M. Brahma Reddy, Sr.P.C for CG appearing for the respondents. We have gone through the pleadings and the material papers placed before us. We also gone through the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. M. Mathivanan.
12. Learned counsel for the applicants in addition to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Mathivanan has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 428 of 2007, dated 7.9.2007, in the case of P. Babaiah Vs. Union of India & Ors.
13. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the question that falls for consideration is as to whether the applicants are entitled for counting their service rendered as APS for computing 16 years of service for financial up-gradation under the TBOP Scheme, or in other words, whether the respondents are justified in denying the service of the applicants rendered as APS while computing 16 years of service for financial upgradation under the TBOP Scheme.
14. It is not in dispute that the applicants were selected for the post of Sorting Assistant in the recruitment of first half year of 1982 in Visakhapatnam RMS V Division, AP Circle and their names were kept in Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) for want of sufficient vacancies in the Division. It is also not in dispute that the applicants joined the APS as Sorting Assistants in the year 1983 on different dates between 1983 and 1987. It is also undisputed that the applicants were regularly appointed as Sorting Assistants in the RMS Division in 1989. The applicants were appointed as Postal Assistants during the years 1983 to 1987 and therefore ceased to be RTP candidates since then. Their request is to take into account the service rendered by them as Postal Assistants prior to their regular appointment as Sorting Assistants in the year 1989. That being the position, we are of the view that the applicants are similarly situated with the applicants before the Madras Bench of the Tribunal, the decision of which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 9.6.2006 (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. M. Mathivanan held that TBOP Scheme requires 16 years of service in terms of para 1 and it nowhere uses the connotation 'regular service'. Person who was appointed as Warrant Officer in 1983 rightly entitled to the benefit of next higher grade in 1999 in terms of the Time Bound Promotion of 1989 Scheme. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the terms and conditions of the appointment of the applicants herein, we are of the view that the judgment of the Madras Bench (supra) which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. M. Mathivanan squarely covers the case of the applicants and therefore the applicants are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the application. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside.
15. Accordingly, we quash the impugned order dated 4.1.2008 and direct the respondents to give the applicants the financial upgradation benefit by taking into account the service rendered by them as APS from the years 1983 - 1987 as the case may be and extend the consequential benefit thereon such as pay fixation, arrears etc. However, it is made clear that the applicants are not entitled for counting of the said service for the purpose of seniority. The respondents shall complete the entire exercise within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. In result, the OA is allowed to the extend indicated above with no order as to costs.
(HRIDAY NARAIN) (BHARATI RAY)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)