Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
B V Krishna Reddy vs Dept Of Posts on 18 April, 2024
OA.No.021/0233/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
OA.No.021/0233/2020
ORDER RESERVED ON 24.11.2023
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 18.04.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
B.V.Krishna Reddy, s/o late B.Ella Reddy,
Aged about 62 years, Retd. Public Relation
Inspector (Postal), r/o No.22/95, Upstairs,
Rameswaram Road, Near PMR School,
Proddutur-516360, Kadapa District, presently
Residing at No.303, Suryanilayam Apartment,
Vahini Nagar, 1st Lane, Bowinapally,
Secunderabad-500 009. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.P.Venkata Rama Sarma)
Vs.
1. The Union of India, rep., by its Secretary,
M/o Information Technology & Communication,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, Parliament Street,
New Delhi.
2. The Director General, Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
3. The Chief Postmaster General, A.P.Circle, Vijayawada.
4. The Postmaster General, Kurnool
Region, Kurnool-518 002.
5. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Proddutur
Division, Proddutur-516 360, Kadapa District. ....Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.B.Siva Sankar, Addl. CGSC)
P a g e | 1 of 14
OA.No.021/0233/2020
ORDER
PER HON'BLE MRS. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant has filed this OA seeking the following relief:
"To declare impugned order No.ST-1/MACP/Digs/2018, dated 9.12.2019 of the 4th Respondent in rejecting the request of the applicant for grant of interest @ 24% on the delayed payment of BCR and MACP-III Financial Upgradation arrears/benefits from the date of eligibility till the date of payment as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, violative of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and by setting aside the same, direct the Respondents to grant interest @24% on the delayed payment of BCR and MACP-III Financial Upgradation arrears/benefits from the date of eligibility till the date of payment with all consequential and attendant benefits an pass such other order or orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. The brief facts of the case, according to the applicant, are that he joined as Postal Assistant on 09.03.1979 and after working in several cadres, retired as Public Relation Inspector (Postal) at Proddutur HO on 31.12.2018 on reaching the age of superannuation.
3. The applicant has submitted that he underwent Open Heart Surgery on 01.01.2016 and had to take frequent check-ups at Hyderabad, and was advised not to take strenuous and stressful duties, and the same was informed to the respondents 4 and 5.
4. The applicant has further submitted that he was granted BCR financial upgradation scale w.e.f 01.07.2005, vide letter dated 28.10.2011 of the 5th respondent. On 28.10.2011, an amount of P a g e | 2 of 14 OA.No.021/0233/2020 Rs.4,05,387/- (Rs.1,53,705/- vide voucher no.84/10-11, Rs.2,52,132/- vide voucher no.32/11-11) was credited to his account in September and October 2011 respectively. Though he attained the eligibility for the above said promotion on 01.07.2005 itself, the same was implemented in October 2011, after a lapse of more than 6 years, that too, after great persuasion, due to which he sustained huge financial loss, and for the delayed action of the respondents, he should not be penalized and put to irreparable loss and hardships, and he is entitled for interest on the delayed payment of the above benefit, which was paid long after more than 6 years though he was eligible for such benefit. He requested the respondents for grant of interest on the inordinate delay in paying the said benefit to him and no explanation or reasons have been assigned and in the absence of the same, he is entitled to claim interest on the said amount from the respondents for the period from 01.07.2005 to 30.11.2011 @ 24% p.a.
5. The applicant has further submitted that his request for grant of MACP-III financial upgradation scale, which has been pending for a long period, was finally implemented by issuing orders dated 10.05.2019 of the 5th respondent. Later, another revised orders were issued, vide letter dated 27.05.2019 of the 5th respondent in the Pay Band of Rs.9300- 34800/- GP Rs.4600/- giving the said benefit from 01.04.2009 and the said order has been implemented on 01.10.2019 by crediting an amount P a g e | 3 of 14 OA.No.021/0233/2020 of Rs.4,18,343/- to his SB A/c No.1621115894, after his retirement on 31.12.2018. Though he was found eligible in the year 2009 itself for grant of MACP-III financial upgradation scale as on 09.03.2009 by following the procedure prescribed for grant of the said benefit, it was delayed by the authorities with a vested interest for more than 10 years. In the interregnum period, the applicant underwent Angioplasty on 31.12.2011 and Open Heart Surgery on 01.01.2016. For the inordinate delay in paying the said benefit to the applicant, no explanation or reasons have been assigned by the respondents and in the absence of the same, he is entitled to claim interest on the said amount from the respondents for the period from 01.04.2009 to 30.09.2019 @ 24% p.a. He submitted representations to the respondents requesting them to grant the MACP-III financial upgradation on 09.10.2012, 18.09.2013, 14.10.2013, 15.02.2014, 13.10.2014, 13.01.2015, 15.11.2017, 21.04.2018, 14.11.2018, 18.04.2019 and 03.09.2019. Having kept hope that the respondents would consider his request, he waited till he was finally informed about the grant of MACP-III financial upgradation, vide proceedings dated 10.05.2019 and revised order dated 27.05.2019 with effect from 01.04.2009. Even after grant of the above benefit the respondents have released the amount till he submitted his representation on 03.09.2019 to the respondents. Had the above benefit was granted to him, he would not have incurred huge money for his surgery and other health problems. The respondents cannot deny the P a g e | 4 of 14 OA.No.021/0233/2020 amount which the applicant was entitled to at the relevant point of time and they cannot simply wash their hands by paying the same at their leisure time that too with delay of more than 10 years and the delay in paying the same should be attributable to the officials concerned, who have kept the file pending. He submitted representation on 16.11.2019 requesting payment of interest on the payment of benefits, which was replied to by the 4th respondent, vide letter dated 09.12.2019, stating that there are no provisions for payment of interest on arrears paid in connection with upgradation of MACP-III, and enclosing a letter dated 12.12.2019 of the 1st respondent that the above representation was forwarded to the 3rd respondent.
6. The applicant has, therefore, contended that the order of the 4th respondent dated 09.12.2019, rejecting his request for grant of interest @ 24% on the delayed payment of benefits, is illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and also as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, and prayed to set aside the same with a direction to the respondents to grant interest @ 24% on the delayed payment of BCR and MACP-III financial upgradation arrears/benefits from the date of eligibility till the date of payment with all consequential and attendant benefits.
P a g e | 5 of 14 OA.No.021/0233/2020
7. The respondents have contested the OA by filing a reply statement. They have stated that the applicant herein joined in the Department as Postal Assistant with effect from 09.03.1979, and retired as Public Relation Inspector (Postal) at Proddatur HO, on 31.12.2018 on superannuation. He was accorded first financial upgradation under Time Bound One Promotion Scheme (TBOP) after completion of 16 years of qualifying service with effect from 13.03.1995 and second financial upgradation under BCR Scheme after completion of 26 years of qualifying service with effect from 01.07.2005. But, the orders for second financial upgradation under BCR Scheme were issued on 28.10.2011, due to the reasons that while working as SPM, Vallur SO under Pulivendla HO, the applicant committed fraudulent closures and withdrawals in MSY Accounts. The fraud was to the tune of Rs.4,58,918/- to the public exchequer and he was removed from service, vide SPOs, Proddatur Division memo dated 23.09.1999. The applicant preferred an appeal dated 09.10.1999 to the 4th respondent. The Director of Postal Services, Kurnool, while disposing of the appeal, vide memo dated 16.03.2000, ordered for denovo proceedings from the stage of issue of charge sheet. In the meantime, the applicant submitted a petition dated 01.04.2000 to the Member (D), Postal Services Board, New Delhi, through proper channel. During the pendency of the petition submitted to the Member (D), Postal Services Board, the 5th respondent in pursuance of the directions of the 4th respondent, vide order dated P a g e | 6 of 14 OA.No.021/0233/2020 16.03.2000, issued a second charge sheet was issued on 12.09.2000, for which the applicant submitted his explanation. In the meantime, the Member (D), Postal Services Board, had considered the applicant's petition dated 01.04.2000 and having found procedural lapses in the entire disciplinary proceedings issued orders, vide memo dated 14.11.2000 setting aside the punishment of removal from service imposed by the 5th respondent and also the appellate authority's order dated 16.03.2000. Further, by another memo dated 23.11.2000, it was ordered to treat the intervening period i.e., from the date of his dismissal from service till the date of reinstatement as period spent on duty for all purposes as per the relevant provisions of FR 54 (2).
8. The respondents have further submitted that while disposing of the OA.No.832/2008 filed by Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, this Tribunal vide its orders dated 08.10.2010 quashed and set aside the charge sheet dated 12.09.2000 and directed the respondents to regularise the suspension period of the applicant and consider him for a suitable post ignoring the contention that he was involved in fraud case. This Tribunal further directed the respondents to convene a review DPC and consider the case of the applicant for promotion to BCR. Hence, the suspension period of the applicant from 06.02.1998 to 14.04.1999 has been regularised and treated as duty, vide memo dated 28.10.2011.
P a g e | 7 of 14 OA.No.021/0233/2020
9. The respondents have further submitted that in pursuance of the orders of this Tribunal, the DPC met on 28.10.2011 at Kurnool, recommended financial upgradation under BCR Scheme to the applicant with effect from 01.07.2005, vide memo dated 28.10.2011. The case of involvement of the applicant in MSY fraudulent closures and withdrawals and settlement of his disciplinary case has taken due time from settlement of all the issues related to the service of the applicant and hence BCR promotion was delayed. Thereafter, the applicant was promoted to Norm based LSG with effect from 11.03.2013. The official was due for MACP-III on completion of 30 years of service on 09.03.2009 and the case of the official was put up to the Departmental Screening Committees. The Reviewing Authority vide office memo dated 29/30.04.2019, has recommended the case of the applicant for financial upgradation under MACP-III w.e.f 01.04.2009 in view of his achieving good grading in APAR after 01.04.2009 and his exoneration from the disciplinary case pending against him. Accordingly, R-5 has issued a memo for grant of MACP-III as per recommendations of the reviewing authority.
10. The respondents have further submitted that the applicant has represented to R-3 on 16.11.2019 for payment of penal interest @24% as compensation of delay for the periods:
a) From 01.07.2005 to 30.11.2011 in r/o BCR Promotion;
b) From 01.04.2009 to 30.09.2019 in r/o MACP-III Promotion.
P a g e | 8 of 14 OA.No.021/0233/2020 The respondent no.4 has informed the applicant, vide memo dated 09.12.2019, that there are no provisions for payment of interest on arrears paid.
11. The respondents have denied the contention of the applicant that he approached this Tribunal to get his due promotions and financial gradations from the department by stating that the applicant got first financial upgradation under TBOP Scheme after completion of 16 years of qualifying service with effect from 13.03.1995, where no CAT case was involved to get such promotion and second financial upgradation was accorded under BCR Scheme after completion of 26 years qualifying service with effect from 01.07.2005. But, the orders for second financial upgradation under BCR Scheme was issued on 28.10.2011, after this Tribunal final orders in OA.No.832/2008, dated 08.10.2010. Since the reinstatement of the applicant is done on technical grounds and second charge sheet dated 12.09.2000 for conducting denovo enquiry ordered by the appellate authority was in place, administration was not in a position to take a decision in the matter like exonerating the applicant, filing police case, treatment of period of suspension and to grant promotion to him. Further, the applicant had not earned good gradings five years prior to 01.04.2009. But the Departmental Screening Committee (DSC) and the Reviewing Authority have duly taken into consideration the good gradings achieved by the applicant after P a g e | 9 of 14 OA.No.021/0233/2020 01.04.2009, and considered the applicant as eligible for MACAP-III w.e.f. 01.04.2009. Hence, the applicant cannot attribute injustice and step motherly attitude on the part of the department. In fact, the MACP- III was to be granted based on the recommendations of the DSC, which was conducted from time to time for making such promotions.
12. The respondents have further submitted that the request of the applicant for sanction of interest was examined/considered by R-4 and disposed off as there are no provisions for payment of interest. The delay in granting promotion to the applicant was on account of the quality of the service rendered by him, which was screened by the DSCs held from 2011 to 2018. Hence, the competent authority did not recommend the applicant's case for promotion. The fact that the applicant has committed frauds in MSY withdrawals and closures to the tune of Rs.4,58,918/- while working as SPM, Vallur SO, which is a huge loss to the public exchequer, still remains. Further, the applicant has not earned good gradings five years prior to 01.04.2009, but the DSC and the Reviewing Authority have duly taken into considered the good gradings achieved by the applicant after 01.04.2009 and considered the applicant as eligible for MACP-III w.e.f. 01.04.2009.
13. The respondents have, therefore, prayed this Tribunal to dismiss the OA.
P a g e | 10 of 14 OA.No.021/0233/2020
14. The applicant has filed a rejoinder to the reply statement filed by the respondents. He has submitted that at no point of time he was ever informed that he did not get the benchmark for grant of MACP-III during his service and the observation of the DPC about non-eligibility was not informed inspite of making several representations to the 4th respondent, who is the concerned authority for grant of MACP-III.
15. The applicant has denied the contentions of the respondents that he got 3 promotions. He got promotion as norm based Lower Selection grade without any increase of pay scale. He also denied that the contention that he did not earn good gradings prior to 01.04.2009, but the DSC and the Reviewing Authority had duly taken into consideration of the good gradings after 01.04.2009, and as he was eligible for MACP- III from 01.04.2009, the same was granted to him from 01.04.2009 onwards only.
16. The applicant has further submitted that after his repeated requests to the department, the respondents have granted the benefit of MACP-III to him from the date of eligibility i.e., 01.04.2009 vide proceedings dated 29/30.04.2019, as per the orders of the 2nd respondent, and the same was implemented by the 4th respondent under whom he was working at the time of issuance of the above memo. As there was sufficient and unexplained delay in payment of the said P a g e | 11 of 14 OA.No.021/0233/2020 benefit i.e., more than 10 years, he is entitled for interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of his eligibility as on account of their delay the due payments were not paid to him.
17. In support of his contentions, the applicant has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K.Dua v State of Haryana & Another (2008 (3) SCC 44), wherein it has been held has follows:
"the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well- founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are Statutory Rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such Rules. If there are Administrative Instructions, Guidelines or Norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence Statutory Rules, Administrative Instructions or Guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of bountyis, in our opinion, well-founded and needs no authority in support thereof......."
18. The applicant has, therefore, prayed this Tribunal to allow the OA as prayed for.
19. Heard Mr.P.Venkata Rama Sarma, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr.B.Siva Sankar, learned counsel for the Respondents, at length and perused the material placed on record.
20. The issue in this OA is that the applicant is praying for the relief in the shape of grant of interest at the rate 24% on the delayed payment of P a g e | 12 of 14 OA.No.021/0233/2020 BCR and MACP-III, by taking support from the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K.Dua v. State of Haryana & Another(supra). The delay in sanction and payment of BCR and MACP-II in the case of the applicant has happened because of disciplinary inquiry being pending against him while he was working as SPM, Vallur Sub Office under Pulivendla HO. The applicant has filed O.A.No.832/2008 before this Tribunal with a prayer to set aside the charge sheet so issued by respondents. The verdict in the said OA was given on 08.10.2010. The applicant was reinstated on technical grounds only.
21. The claim of the applicant for grant of MACP-III on 01.04.2009 could not be given earlier because of his poor grading prior to 01.04.2009. The Departmental Screening Committee considered him eligible for MACP-III w.e.f. 01.04.2009. Since the matter was involving disciplinary proceedings, the applicant filed OA. So, the matter was under subjudice. Therefore, the grant of BCR promotion and MACP-III could not happened on due dates. The applicant himself is responsible for delayed payment due to his involvement in a fraud case when the inquiry was ordered. The BCR promotion was given to him from 01.07.2005 and MACP was granted on 01.04.2009.
22. The present OA is filed claiming delayed payment. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K.Dua v. State of Haryana & Another dated P a g e | 13 of 14 OA.No.021/0233/2020 09.01.2008 in Appeal (Civil) No.184/2008, while dismissing the Appeal has observed as under:
"The petitioner seeks only payment of interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits. We, however, relegate the petitioner to avail of his remedies before the Civil Court, if so advised."
The respondents have submitted that the existing rule position does not support the claim of the applicant.
23. In these circumstances, we do not find any reason directing the respondents for sanctioning of interest on delayed payment, as prayed for by the applicant. However, the applicant is at liberty to approach appropriate Civil Court for his grievance, if pending. The OA is accordingly dismissed as devoid of merits. There shall be no order as to costs.
.
( SHALINI MISRA ) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER DSN.
P a g e | 14 of 14