Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Mohd. Yunus Aged About 50 Years Son Of Ali ... vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 24 September, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Original Application No. 538/2009
Reserved on 9.9.2014
Pronounced on 24.9.2014
Honble Sri Navneet Kumar , Member (J)
Honble Ms. Jayati Chandra, Member (A)
Mohd. Yunus aged about 50 years son of Ali Jauwad, resident of near Zinnatowali Maszid Sarfrazganj, Hardoi Road, Lucknow-226003. Applicant
By Advocate: Sri Surendran P
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, New Delhi.
2. Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow.
3. The Director of Accounts (Postal), U.P.Circle, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024.
4. The Chief Post Master ,GPO, Lucknow-226001.
Respondents
By Advocate: Sri K.K.Shukla
ORDER
BY HONBLE SRI NAVNEET KUMAR, MEMBER (J) The present Original Application is preferred by the applicant u/s 19 of the AT Act, with the following reliefs:-
a) issuing/ passing of an order or direction setting aside the impugned audit objection of 2007 in question as well as the order/communication issued by the respondent No.1 vide Memo No.44-47/98-SPB.II dated 5.5.2004, leaving behind order dated 27.4.2007 issued by the respondent No.4 in accordance with Govt. communication No. 44-47/98-SPB.II of 2000 in interest of natural justice.
b) issuing /passing of any other order or direction as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
c) Allow this original application with cost.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant joined the respondents organization as Postal Assistant in the year 1981. In 1987, after completion of 16 years regular service, the name of the applicant was approved for first financial up-gradation in the next higher scale under Time Bound One Promotion Scheme (TBOP Scheme).It is also indicated by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per rule, the financial upgradations /Promotions in the higher scales under TBOP/BCR scheme were applicable from the date of completion of 16 years and 26 years of service. After the objection raised by the audit party that the date of financial upgradation under BCR for the applicant should be 1.7.2007 instead of 1.1.2007. Accordingly, certain orders were passed. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon two decisions of this Tribunal one passed by the Mumbai Bench in the case of Sri K..G. Patil Vs. Union of India and others in O.A. No. 398/2002 (decided on 19.12.2002) as well as Ambika Prasad Shukla Vs. Union of India and others in O.A. No. 396/2006 (decided on 24.3.2014) passed by this Tribunal and has indicated that the present O.A. also deserved to be allowed.
3. Sri K.K.Shukla, learned counsel for respondents filed their counter reply and through counter reply, it is indicated that on account of internal audit objection, it was indicated that on account of irregular promotion under BCR scheme, the authorities have issued an order of recovery and since the applicant joined the service in P.A. cadre on 25.1.1981, as such after completion of 26 years of regular service, the applicant is entitled for financial upgradation under BCR scheme w.e.f. 1.7.2007 in place of 1.1.2007. It is also indicated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the training period is not counted for TBOP/BCR promotion.
4. On behalf of the applicant , Rejoinder Reply is filed and through rejoinder reply, mostly the averments made in the O.A. are reiterated and denied the contents of the counter reply.
5. Not only this, the learned counsel for respondents has also filed Supple. Counter reply to which the applicant has not filed the Supple. R.A.
6. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the records.
7. The applicant joined the respondents organization as Postal Assistant w.e.f. 25.1.1981. The respondents introduced a scheme known as One Time Bound Promotion and the same is applicable after 16 years of regular service. Since the applicant completed 16 years of service in 1997, as such he was granted the benefit of TBOP in 1997. Apart from this, since the applicant joined the service in 1981, as such after completion of 26 years of service, he is entitled to financial benefit under BCR scheme. It is also undisputed that the applicant was appointed in 1981 and as per the circular No. 44-47/98-SPB II which is in regard to counting of the period of induction training for benefit of promotion under the TBOP/BCR scheme and after due consultation with the Department of Personnel and Training, it was decided that the period of induction training may also be counted for benefit of promotion under the TBOP/BCR scheme. As per the counter reply, the date of circular is dated 3.8.2000. Since the applicant joined the respondents organization in 1981 and was granted the first financial up-gradation in 1997, as such he is entitled for the benefit of financial up-gradation under the TBOP/BCR scheme after completion of 16 and 26 years of service respectively.
8. The issue of granting TBOP/BCR benefit was taken up before the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri K. G. Patil vs. Union of India and Ors., whereby the benefit of BCR Scheme was required to be given immediately on completion of 26 years of services and this has been observed by the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal that this is clear that scheme has been introduced with a view to grant promotion to stagnating employees at a particular intervals of time and in this case it is after completion of 26 years of the service. There is no reason which the promotion should be prolonged beyond that period only to suit the convenience of respondents in holding the Review Meetings to consider the employees for upgradation under the BCR Scheme.
9. The same view was also taken by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 396/2006 in the case of Ambika Prasad Shukla Vs. UOI and others.
10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for parties and also on the basis of decisions rendered by this Tribunal as well as by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal, we have no reason to defer with the earlier orders. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.1.1997 in respect of the applicant is quashed.
11. With the above observations , O.A. is allowed. No order as to costs.
(JAYATI CHANDRA) (NAVNEET KUMAR) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) HLS/- `