Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
T Sulochanan vs D/O Post on 19 September, 2023
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH,
ERNAKULAM
Original Application No. 180/00139/2021
Tuesday, this the 19th day of September, 2023
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. K.V. Eapen, Member (A)
T. Sulochanan, retired Office Superintendent,
Office of the Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Theiruvananthapuram-695 033,
Residing at Sithara House, S/o. Mr. S/o. D. Thankayan,
Mukkuttukal, Manjalumoodu PO, Vilavucode Taluk,
Kanyakumari District, Tamilnadu state-629 151,
Mob.9447866299. ..... Applicant
(By Advocates : Mr. S.K. Balachandran, R. Reghunandanam &
Ms. N.D. Deepa)
Versus
1. Union of India, rep. by the Director General,
Department of Posts, India, Dak Bhavan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Post Master General,
Department of Posts, Kerala Circle,
Thiruvanandapuram - 686 033. ..... Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. N. Anilkumar, Senior Panel Counsel)
This Original Application having been heard on 08.09.2023, the
Tribunal on 19.09.2023 delivered the following:
2
ORDER
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -
The applicant was working as an Office Superintendent at the office of the Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram, which is the 2nd respondent. According to the applicant, while in service he was promoted and posted to officiate as Deputy Superintendent (HSG-I) in pay band-I with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- vide order dated 3.7.2013. He was ordered for regular promotion to the cadre of HSG-II Section Supervisor in pay band-I with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,200/- vide memo dated 13.8.2014. Again he was ordered to be promoted and posted to officiate as Deputy Office Superintendent (HSG- I) in pay band-I with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- vide memo dated 20.8.2013. According to the applicants all those were from one Grade Pay to another, but the procedure prescribed for fixation of pay under FR22(1)(a)(i) by way of additional one increment due on promotion from one Grade Pay to another was not paid to him at any point of time in spite of the above postings. Applicant submitted several representations. The last representation was rejected by Annexure A2 order. Hence, he has approached this Tribunal seeking the relief to declare that the applicant 3 was entitled to get his pay fixed under FR22(1)(a)(i) by way of additional one increment due on promotion from one Grade Pay to another.
2. Respondents appeared and filed a reply statement and an additional reply statement. In the additional reply statement the precise contention of the respondents was that applicant was never promoted from one post to another as claimed by him and whenever he was directed to officiate it was in the same cadre and in the same time scale with Grade Pay. There was no element of promotion in those posts at all.
3. In the reply statement it was contended that the post of Office Superintendent and Deputy Office Superintendent were in the grade of HSG-I and both carried duties of approximately one and same character, in terms of responsibilities as well as nature of duties. The pay of the holder of any particular post was determined by his position in the cadre or class and not the post that the official holds. It was intimated to the applicant in reply to his representation. It was asserted that the posts of Office Superintendent and Deputy Office Superintendent fall within the same cadre and were on the same time scale with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/-. There was no element of promotion between these posts at all. 4 Normally the senior most official available will be declared as the Office Superintendent. It was contended that FR22(1)(a) was applicable only in case of promotion or appointment on regular basis to a higher post and which involved assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance. FR22(1)(a) was applied in the case of applicant on his promotion from HSG-II Section Supervisor to Office Superintendent in HSG-I. No further promotion was available in the hierarchy. According to the respondents, the post of Deputy Office Superintendent and the post of Office Superintendent were in the same HSG-I cadre and in terms of necessity the applicant was posted as OS. It was further stated that the official was not entitled to any further pay on promotion to the post of HSG. The respondents relied on Annexures R-4 and R-5 to establish the above.
4. It seems that the applicant was working as the LSG Section Supervisor in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2,800/- and his next line of promotion was HSG-II Section Supervisor with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/-. He was promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of HSG-I Office Superintendent by applying FR 35 restrictions and later reverted to LSG Section Supervisor with effect from 12.8.2013 as he became eligible for regular promotion to 5 HSG-II grade. It is also seen that thereafter he was promoted on regular basis to HSG-II Section Supervisor with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/- with effect from 13.8.2013. He was promoted as HSG-I Deputy Office Superintendent again on ad hoc basis with effect from 20.8.2013 evidenced by Annexure A4. He was again promoted as HSG-I Office Superintendent on regular basis with effect from 15.9.2015. This is evident from Annexure R-5.
5. It is evident that the post of Office Superintendent and Deputy Office Superintendent are in the grade of HSG-I and both carries responsibilities and duties of same character. The pay of the holder of any particular post is determined by his position in the cadre or class and not by the post that the official holds as rightly contended by the respondents. There was no element of promotion between Deputy Office Superintendent and Office Superintendent. There seems to be substance in the contention of the respondents that he was assigned with the duties when the post of Office Superintendent and Deputy Office Superintendent were vacant which cannot by any stretch of imagination attract the benefit of FR22(1)(a) as claimed by the applicant. 6
6. In the light of the above facts, the claim of the applicant is without any basis and is liable to be rejected. OA is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
(K.V. EAPEN) (JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
"SA"
7
Original Application No. 180/00139/2021
APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 - True copy of the representain dt. 18.3.2019 made by
the applicant to the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A2 - True copy of the reply letter No. ST/33/S-937/2019 dt.
3.12.2019 issued from the office of the 2nd respondent. Annexure A3 - True copy of the letter No. 4-19/2014-SPB-II dated 15.4.2015 issued on behalf of the 1st respondent. Annexure A4 - True copy of the OM No. 10/02/2011-E.III/A dated 7.1.2013 communicated as per letter F. No. 01- 01/2011-PAP dated 30.4.2014.
Annexure A5 - True copy of the reply No. RTI/186/2021-22 dt.
10.8.2021 received by the applicant under RTI Act. Annexure A6 - True copy of the reply No. RTI/192/2021-22 dt.
7.9.2021 received by the applicant under RTI Act. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R-1 - True copy of the pay fixation memo reflecting MACP-
III granted to the applicant.
Annexure R-2 - True copy of the Circle Gradation list circulated vide letter No. ST/42-4/GL/2012 dated 11.3.2013.
Annexure R-3 - True copy of the letter No. 35034/3/2008-Estt.(D) dated 9.9.2010 issued by DoPT.
Annexure R-4 - True copy of the letter No. ST/51/1-1/2009-10 dated 20.8.2013.
8Annexure R-5 - True copy of the letter No. ST/51/1-1/2014 dated 15.9.2015.
Annexure R-6 - True copy of the letter No. EST/3-2/2003 dated 9.1.2008.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-