Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Union Of India And Ors vs N.Kista Reddy S/O Laxma Reddy on 14 September, 2018

Bench: S.Sujatha, Mohammad Nawaz

                               1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018

                           PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

                             AND

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

         WRIT PETITION NO.201607/2017 (S-CAT)

Between:

1. Union of India
   By Secretary
   Department of Posts
   Dak Bhavan
   New Delhi - 110 001

2. The Chief Postmaster General
   Karnataka Circle
   Bangalore - 560 001

3. The Postmaster General
   North Karnataka Region
   Dharwad - 580 001

4. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices
   Gulbarga Division
   Gulbarga - 585 101
                                         ... Petitioners

(By Smt. Hema L. Kulakarni, Advocate)
                                 2




And:

N. Kista Reddy S/o Laxma Reddy
Aged about 63 years
Occ: Retired as Post Master Grade-I
Gazipura, Gulbarga - 585 101
Residing at Dollin House, Gazipura
Gulbarga - 585 101
                                                   ... Respondent

(By Sri Shambuling S. Salimath &
 Sri Vershetty B. Kondampalli, Advocates - Absent)

       This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari to
quash the order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in O.A. No.1206/2013, the
certified copy of which is produced at Annexure-A.

       This petition   coming   on    for   Admission,   this    day,
SUJATHA J., made the following:


                             ORDER

Petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore ('Tribunal' for short) in Original Application No.1206/2013, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the original application filed by the respondent herein holding that the 3rd Modified Assured Career 3 Progression (MACP) benefits to the respondent shall be released from the date he became eligible for it.

2. It is not in dispute that an identical question arose before this Court inasmuch as applicability of 3rd MACP benefits to the employee, who had declined a regular promotion.

3. The Cognate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.765/2014 and allied matters (D.D.16.12.2015) in the case of K.Saganaiah and others vs. Union of India and others has held thus:-

"5. Admittedly, MACP scheme was announced on 18.09.2009. Though the benefits under MACP scheme were to be given effect from 1.9.2008, none of the employees including the petitioners were known about the MACP scheme. They came to know about the said scheme only on 18.09.2009 when the said scheme was notified. But within that period itself, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.765/14, 763/14 and 762/14 were offered LSG post on 5.6.2009, 9.7.2008 and 29.4.2008 respectively i.e., much 4 prior to coming into force of MACP scheme. The petitioners came to know that they would be punished financially if they refuse the promotional post offered by the respondents only after notifying MACP scheme dated 18.9.2009. Hence, the petitioners cannot be punished in view of they not accepting the promotional post offered to them. Since the petitioners had refused the so called promotional post prior to announcement of MACP scheme it cannot be said that the petitioners are guilty. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to get the benefits as per law."

4. In the present case, MACP scheme was introduced in the Postal Department by an order dated 19.05.2009. The respondent had declined LSG promotion on 20.03.2008.

5. In view of the Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Court, the view taken by the Tribunal extending the 3rd MACP benefits to the respondent, who had declined a regular promotion prior to announcement of MACP 5 scheme can not be held to be unjustifiable. Hence, writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE LG