Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Raksh Pal Singh vs M/O Communications on 20 September, 2023
1
Item No.35
OA No.3466/2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 3466/2019
Order reserved on: 21.08.2023
Order pronounced on : 20.09.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
1. Raksh Pal Singh, aged 6l yrs
S/o Late Sri Ranm
R/o N-34-A, Krishna Vihar,
New Delhi-110086
Retired Sorting Assistant. Group C'
2. Ramjee Sah, age about 56 years
S/o Late Sh. Nand Lal Sah
R/o 297, Gali No. 3,
Block D, Qutab Vihar Ph-I,
New Delhi-110071.
Working as LSG Supervisor. Gr.‟C‟
3. Anil Kumar Pandey, age about 55 years
S/o Late Sh. Ram Ashrey
R/o 3/92, Tukkmeer Pur Extn,
New Delhi-110090.
Working as Sorting Assistant. Gr. „C‟
4. Parmod Kumar Rai, age about 55 years
S/o Late Sh. Ram Lagan Rai,
R/o EPT-103, Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi-110023. Gr.‟C‟
Working as HSG-I.
5. Sher Shah, age about 56 years
S/o Sh. Khursand Ahmed
R/o F-57/11, 1st Floor, Jamia Nagar,
New Delhi-110025.
2
Item No.35
OA No.3466/2019
Working as LSG Supervisor, Gr.‟C‟.
6. Raj Pal Singh, age about 55 years
S/o Late Sh. Braham Singh,
R/o RZ-87, Gali No. 6, Mohan Block,
West Sagarar, New Delhi-110046
Working as Sorting Assistant, Gr. „C‟.
7. Kapil Kumar, age about 53 years (Gr.‟C‟)
S/o Late Sh. Satpal Bhatia,
R/o B-6/212, Sector-5, Rohini,
Delhi-110085,
Working as Sorting Assistant.
8. Uma Datt Kaushik, age about 55 years
S/o Late Sh. Govind Ram Kaushik,
R/o WZ-653, Gali No. 18-E,
Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony,
New Delhi-110045.
Working as HSG-I. (Gr.‟C‟)
9. Vijay Singh, age about 59 years
S/o Sh. Daulat Singh,
R/o A-29-A, Gali No.1, Madhu Vihar
New Delhi-110059.
Retired LSG Supervisor.(Gr. „C‟)
10. Vinod Kumar Mudgal, age about 56 years
S/o Late Sh. V.D. Mudgal,
R/o LPT-339, Sarojini Nagar
New Delhi-110023.
Working as LSG Supervisor. (Gr.‟C‟ )
11. Trilok Singh Rauthan, age about 56 years
S/o Sh. Surat Singh Rauthan,
R/o MPT-439, Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi-110023.
Working as Sorting Assistant. (Gr.‟C‟)
3
Item No.35
OA No.3466/2019
12. Sarita Thapliyal, age about 56 years
W/o Sh. D.K Thapliyal,
R/o MPT-389, Sarojini Nagar
New Delhi-110023.
Working as LSG Supervisor. (Gr. „C‟)
13. Anil Kumar Panwar, age about 53 years
S/o Sh. Sita Ram,
R/o WZ-72/ 12, Mohan Nagar,
Gali No. 6, Pankha Road,
New Delhi-1 10046.
Working as Sorting. Assistant) (Gr.‟C‟)
14. Rajinder Kumar-II, age about 58 years
S/o Late Sh. Tej Pal Singh,
R/o RZ-64, Gali No. 10, Tughlkabad Extn.,
New Delhi-110019.
Working as Sorting Assistant.(Gr.‟C‟)
15.Vinod Kumar-I, age about 56 years
S/o Late Sh. Dhani Ram,
R/o HPT-126, Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi-1 10023.
Working as LSG Supervisor.(Gr.‟C‟)
16. Hem Jain, age about 53 years
W/o Sh. Sunil Jain,
R/o G-186, Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029.
Working as Sorting Assistant. (Gr.‟C‟)
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri G.D. Chawla )
4
Item No.35
OA No.3466/2019
Versus
Union of India through:
1. The Secretary,
M/o Communications
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
2. The Director General of Posts,
Govt. of India,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-11001.
3. The Chief Postmaster General,
Delhi Circle, New Delhi-110001.
4. The Senior Superintendent,
Department of Posts,
Delhi Sorting Division, Delhi-110006.
5. The Senior Superintendent,
Department of Posts,
Air Mail Sorting Division,
New Delhi-110021.
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri K.M. Singh )
5
Item No.35
OA No.3466/2019
ORDER
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J) :-
The applicants were appointed in the year 1983 as Temporary Short Duty Sorting Assistants under a scheme called Reserve Trained Pool (RTP). They were given regular appointment in the year 1989 as Sorting Assistants. They are aggrieved that the benefit of scheme under the RTP, from the year 1983 to 1989 has not been accorded in their favor for the purpose of granting them financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. The applicants agitated their grievance before this Tribunal, seeking counting of service as Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) in an earlier round of litigation in OA No 4196/2018 which was decided on 02.11.2018 giving the following directions:
"5. Having regards to the submissions made and without going into the merits of the case, we dispose of this OA with a direction to the Senior Superintendent, Department of Post, Delhi Sorting Division, Delhi (respondent No. 4) to decide and dispose of the representations of the applicants by passing a common order, 6 Item No.35 OA No.3466/2019 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the order is passed in their favour, then the benefits of the same, shall be extended to the applicant within three months thereafter. In case the order is adversial to the applicants, they shall have liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedy, as available to them under law."
2. Learned counsel for the applicants argues that in the garb of compliance of the aforesaid order, the respondents have passed an order dated 02.07.2019 (Annexure A-2). Accordingly, they seek the following relief(s) by virtue of the present O.A.:-
" 8.1 To direct the respondents to place the relevant records before the Hon'ble Tribunal for proper adjudication in the matter;
8.2 To allow the instant OA with all consequential benefits for example counting of the service of the applicants as RTP from 1983 to 1989 for the purpose of pension and grant of MACP in terms of Hon'ble High Court's order as well as Co-Ordinate Benches of the CAT's order.
8.3 To allow the instant OA with all consequential benefits to the applicants who are all similarly situated as mentioned above.
8.4 Any other relief / order in favor of the applicant as deemed fit and just by this 7 Item No.35 OA No.3466/2019 Hon'ble Tribunal in the circumstances and in the interests of justice."
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants states that the issue at stake has been adjudicated upon by different Benches of this Tribunal wherein the benefit of service rendered under the RTP as Temporary Short Duty Sorting Assistant has been extended to the applicants therein for the purpose of various financial benefits. In support of his contentions, he draws strength from various judgments of Coordinate Benches of the this Tribunal as well as Hon‟ble High Court. They read as under :-
(i) All India Postal Employees Union vs. UOI & Ors. Before the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal in T.A. No.82/1986 decided on 16.12.1986.
(ii) Sanjay Sumantrao Sathe & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. Before the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.719/1996 and batch decided on 31.08.2010.
(iii) Union of India Vs.The Registrar, CAT, Chennai & Ors. before the Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature at 8 Item No.35 OA No.3466/2019 Madras in W.P. Nos.34944 and 33298 of 2016 and decided on 24.07.2019
(iv) Order of Madras Bench of the Tribunal in MA No.708/2018 in OA No.1734/2018 dated 28.03.2019.
4. He submits that in view of several consistently identical judgments, there is cause for any departure in the instant matter. He further relies upon a judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad dated 27.02.2023 in WP (C) No 17400/2016 titled Union of India & Ors. Vs. V. Ravi Krishna & Ors. He submits that without any further doubt, this judgment conclusively settles the claim of the applicants as set forth in the OA. He clarifies that this judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana has taken into consideration the previous pronouncements on the subject.
5. Mr. K.M. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and draws support from the averments made in the counter reply. He 9 Item No.35 OA No.3466/2019 submits that no challenge has been placed to the order dated 02.07.2019 in the present OA, passed in compliance of the aforesaid order of this Tribunal in OA No.4196/2018. Therefore, the principle of res judicata will get attracted and the applicants are barred from agitating the said issue in the present OA.
6. He further argues that the scheme of RTP stood abolished in the year 1986 and hence the benefit of service rendered under non-existent scheme cannot be extended in favor of the applicants. However, he does not contest that the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana being relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants does uphold the orders of the Tribunal extending the benefit of computing service as RTP for the purpose of financial upgradation.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings available on record.
8. The facts of the instant O.A are examined in the light of the judgment passed by Hon‟ble High Court for 10 Item No.35 OA No.3466/2019 the State of Telengana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.17400/2016. It is seen that the facts, circumstances and prayer of the applicants have conclusively been decided by the Hon‟ble High Court for the State of Telengana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.17400/2016. However, the benefit of the same could not be extended to the applicants as the directions were specific and they were not party to the said Writ Petition. It is also noteworthy to mention that once the applicants have preferred their representations in terms of directions passed in OA No.4196/2018 and at the relevant time when the same were considered and decided, the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad was there, the respondents ought to have decided the same in terms of the aforesaid decision of the Hon‟ble High Court. The only reason for non grant of the benefit was that the applicants were not party to that Writ Petition and the same is misplaced. While deciding the Writ Petition, the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana had observed as under :-
11
Item No.35 OA No.3466/2019 "7. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the view that the Tribunal has followed the judgment, dated 16.12.1986, passed in T.A. No.82 of 1986 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalapur Bench, which was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.11313 of 1987, dated 11.05.1988, and even the Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, has directed the respondents therein to follow the judgment of the Jabalpur Bench only. Therefore, there is no confusion at all for the petitioners to file the present Writ Petitions. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned common order passed by the Tribunal."
9. From the above, it is clear that the Hon‟ble High Court at Telangana was guided by the decision in SLP No.11313/1987 decided by the Hon‟ble Apex Court on 11.05.1988. It is settled preposition of law that in the matter of pay scales, the respondents were obliged to follow the dicta of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court followed by the Hon‟ble High Courts/Tribunals. The respondents were obliged to extend the benefit to the applicants suo motu. The applicants have been unnecessarily forced to approach the Tribunal. 12 Item No.35 OA No.3466/2019
10. For the reasons quoted hereinabove, the OA is allowed with a direction to the respondents, to extend the benefit to the applicants in terms of the aforesaid decision of Hon‟ble High Court for the State of Telangana in WP No.17400 and 17425 of 2016. The applicants shall be entitled for grant of all consequential benefits flowing therefrom including MACP and pension, which shall be fixed accordingly, wherever applicable.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Pratima K. Gupta) (Tarun Shridhar)
Member (J) Member (A)
/rk/