Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Bishnu Mohan Das Mohapatra vs D/O Post on 21 November, 2025
O.A. 494 OF 2020 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH OA No. 494 OF 2020 Reserved on :20.11.2025 Pronounced on :21.11.2025 Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Member (J) Hon'ble Mr. Pramod Kumar Das, Member (A)
1. Bishnu Mohan Das Mohapatra, aged about 61 years, S/o Late Manmohan Das Mohapatra, resident of Vill/PO Panichhatra, Via Kupari, PS Khaira, Dist Balasore, Odisha, PIN 756059 and now residing at Apartibindha, AT/PO Bhadrak Town, Dist Bhadrak, PIN 756100 and retired as Superintendent of Post Offices, Balasore Division, Balasore, PIN 756001. (Gr. B).
......Applicant VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through its Secretary of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Director General of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
3. Chief Postmaster General, Odisha Circle, AT/PO Bhubaneswar, Dist Khurda, Odisha - 751001.
4. Director of Accounts (Postal), Mahanadi Vihar, Cuttack, Pin 753004.
......Respondents For the applicant : Mr. C P Sahani, counsel For the respondents: Mr. A C Deo, counsel Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:21.11.2025 16:20 O.A. 494 OF 2020 2 O R D E R Hon'ble Mr.Pramod Kumar Das, A.M. The applicant challenging the action of the respondents in not granting the higher scale of pay w.e.f. 01.08.1991 under TBOP scheme at par with his juniors who have been granted the benefit vide order dated 22.01.2019 has filed this OA praying for following reliefs:
a) Admit the Original Application, and
b) After hearing the counsels for the parties further be pleased to quash the impugned rejection order vide Memo No. ST/26-2/2019 dated 05.12.2019 at Annexure A/9 and direct the departmental respondents to grant the higher scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2300 (4th CPC0 to the applicant w.e.f. 01.08.1991 at par with his junior Sri Dinabandhu Saran, Ex PASBCO, Bhawanipatna HO as granted to other juniors vide Annexure A/5 with all consequential benefits. And/or
c) Pass any other order(s) as the Hon'ble Tribunal deem just and proper in the interest of justice considering the facts and circumstances of the case and allow the OA with costs.
Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:21.11.2025 16:20 O.A. 494 OF 2020 3
2. The brief facts of the case as inter alia averred by the applicant in the OA is that the applicant joined in the respondents organization as UDC (Savings Bank Control Organization) in Dhenkanal HO w.e.f. 27.05.1983 and was promoted to the cadre of Inspector of Posts w.e.f. 04.10.1993 and then to Superintendent of Post Offices and retired from service w.e.f. 28.02.2019. It is submitted that while the applicant was working as UDC, SBCO the Time Bound One Promotion Scheme (TBOP) was introduced for the staff working in Saving Bank Control Organizations in the Department of Posts vide letter dated 26.07.1991 under which provisions the posts of LDCs and UDCs were abolished and a new cadre in the name of Postal Assistant was created and as per the provisions the officials who were completed as LDC and UDC or as Postal Assistant promoted to the next higher scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- . It was noticed that some officials including UDCs who were senior than many LDCs were denied higher pay scales, therefore many senior officials including the applicant filed application before the authorities or Tribunal and then it was decided by Govt. vide letter dated 08.02.1996 that all senior Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:21.11.2025 16:20 O.A. 494 OF 2020 4 officials including UDCs who were adversely affected by the scheme were entitled to get the next higher scale of pay from the date of their immediate juniors became eligible for next higher scale. It is submitted that the same was reiterated vide circular dated 05.08.1997 and 01.01.1998 and thus the applicant was also eligible for next higher scale of pay. It is submitted that vide letter dated 17.05.2000 the circulars dated 08.02.1996, 05.08.1997 and 01.01.1998 were withdrawn and the applicant did not get the benefit of next higher scale of pay. It is submitted that the validity of letter dated 17.05.2000 was challenged before various judicial forums and in pursuance to order dated 13.02.2017 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of UOI & Ors vs S Bheesmachar & ors., it was decided by Govt. of India to withdraw the circular dated 17.05.200 and the earlier circulars dated 08.02.1996, 05.08.1997 and 01.01.1998 have been restored. It is submitted that in the order dated 13.02.2017 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court it has been mentioned that the Govt. of India has decided to extend the benefit to all similarly situated persons. It is submitted that the respondents implemented the Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:21.11.2025 16:20 O.A. 494 OF 2020 5 order and granted the financial upgradation under TBOP to all the erstwhile regular UDCs (SBCO) w.e.f. 01.08.1191 at par with their juniors vide memo dated 22.01.2019 but the applicant name was not in the list. The applicant then submitted a representation dated 11.06.2019 before Respondent No. 3 to include his name and grant him the higher pay. It is submitted that the Respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 06.09.2019 asked the applicant to submit any proof regarding exercising option for Time Scale Postal Assistant while working as UDC. It is submitted that as per the scheme of TBOP there was no need of any option to cover under the scheme and the option was only for those officials who were willing to retain their old pay and consequently not covered under TBOP. It is submitted that applicant was promoted to the cadre of Inspector of Posts on 04.10.1993 and thus the respondents neither sought any option nor there was any scope for the applicant to submit any option at any point of time. It is submitted that it was decided that the benefit had to be extended to all the seniors who are similarly situated, then the applicant is entitled to get the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 1400- Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:21.11.2025 16:20 O.A. 494 OF 2020 6 2300 w.e.f. 01.08.1991. It is submitted that applicant submitted representation dated 25.10.2019 which was rejected by the respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 05.12.2019. It is submitted that many of his juniors have been allowed the benefit vide order dated 22.01.2019. Hence the OA.
3. The respondents in their counter inter alia averred that TBOP scheme was introduced w.e.f. 01.08.1991 according to which LDC cadre (950-1500) and UDC cadre (1200-2040) were merged and designated as PA (SBCO) with pay scale (975-1660) and there was provision that "all the existing LDC/UDC will be required to furnish within one month their option under FR 23 according to which they may is so like retain their old pay in the existing scale of pay which would be personal to such official. The Option once exercised will be final". It is submitted that all other official except Sri Das Mohapatra exercised their option and as many as 143, LDC/UDC were designated as PA (SBCO) whereas Sri Das Mohapatra did not exercise option and remained as UDC till promotion to the cadre of Inspector of Posts on 04.10.1993. It is submitted that one Sri Dinabandhu Saran a surplus staff at DNK project who Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:21.11.2025 16:20 O.A. 494 OF 2020 7 was redeployed in Department of Post as LDC and redesignated as PA (SBCO) subsequently got financial upgradation under TBOP with effect from 01.08.1991 and the official who were senior to him in the Gradation/Seniority List of PA (SBCO) officials claimed TBOP at par with Sri Saran and got it. It is submitted that since applicant did not exercise his option to be designated as PA (SBCO) he remained as UDC and that the TBOP scheme is applicable to PA (SBCO) only and not to the UDC so TBOP was not granted to the applicant. It is submitted that the representation of the applicant was considered and rejected as he had not exercised option under FR 23 within a stipulated period of one month. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the stand taken by him in the OA and submitting that as per Para 1(iv) of the scheme "the officials who do not opt for their old scales, will be brought into the grade of Postal Asst. (SBCO) and their pay will be fixed under FR 22(I) (a) (2) as substituted by the Govt. of India, Deptt. of Personnel and Training notification No. 1- 10/89-Estt (Pay I) dated 30.08.89 by the treating the post in Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:21.11.2025 16:20 O.A. 494 OF 2020 8 the time scale as not involving assumption of higher duties and responsibilities." It is submitted that hence the provisions clearly provided that option was required to those officials who wanted to opt for old scales and since the applicant had not exercised option, he was designated as Postal Asst. (SBCO) and not UDC.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. The applicant had joined as UDC, SBCO on 27.05.1983 and then got promoted and joined as Inspector of Posts on 04.10.1993. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the sole ground for rejecting the claim of the applicant by the respondents is that he had not exercised option under FR 23 within one month of date of receipt of letter dated 26.07.1991. He further submitted that point (ii) of the TBOP scheme stipulates that "The posts of LDC (Rs. 950-1500) and UDC (Rs. 1200-2040) in the Saving Bank control organization and Internal Check Organization except to the extent LDC/UDC who remain under the existing scale will be abolished and equal number of Time scale Postal Asst. (Rs. 975-1660) will be created. The remaining posts will, however, be converted as Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:21.11.2025 16:20 O.A. 494 OF 2020 9 Postal Asst. (SBCO) as and when the concerned LDC/UDC ceases to hold that post. All the existing LDC/UDC will be required to furnish, within one month, their option under FR 23 according to which they may, if so like retain their old pay in the existing scale of pay which would be personal to such officials. The option once exercised will be final."
7. He submitted that it is clear from the above that the option under FR 23 is not for coming to Postal Asst. (SBCO) but for retaining the old pay in the existing scale. He further submitted that point (iv) of the scheme stipulates that "the officials who do not opt for their old scales, will be brought into the grade of Postal Asst. (SBCO) and their pay will be fixed under FR 22(I) (a) (2) as substituted by the Govt. of India, Deptt. of Personnel and Training notification No. 1-10/89-Estt (Pay I) dated 30.08.89 by the treating the post in the time scale as not involving assumption of higher duties and responsibilities."
8. However it is seen from the TBOP scheme vide Annexure A/1 at point (vi) that the existing officials who do not opt for old scales would be considered for grant of first promotion in the Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:21.11.2025 16:20 O.A. 494 OF 2020 10 next higher scale of Rs. 1400-2300 if they complete/have completed 16 years of service as LDC or as LDC and UDC or as Postal Asst. and UDC taken together. Their pay on grant of promotion will be fixed under FR 11 (c) with reference to the pay fixed in the time scale.
9. The applicant who was working then as UDC in the scale of Rs. 1200-2400 did not opt for being designated as PA (SBCO) which was in scale of Rs. 975-1660/-. The claim of the applicant that no one asked him to give options falls flat as seen from Annexure R/6 where the respondents had on 01.08.1996 accepted options from other employees. The applicant sat over the matter till 2019 and for the first time agitated the issue. The respondents had granted financial upgradations to those UDCs who had exercised option for PA (SBCO). In the absence of any option from the applicant he is governed by point (vi) of the Scheme wherein he would get the benefit of promotion to the scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- only after completion of 16 years. It is worthwhile to mention that the applicant got promoted to the post of Inspector of Posts 04.10.1993 before completion of 16 years. Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:21.11.2025 16:20 O.A. 494 OF 2020 11
10. The applicant at his sweet will cannot blow hot and cold to gain benefits and cannot probate or reprobate the issue after such long time. He had chosen not to opt and enjoyed the benefits which he felt was more beneficial at that point of time and now after lapse of more than two decades is claiming benefit under some other scheme which is not permissible.
11. Accordingly we do not find any illegality in the decision of respondents in rejecting his claim warranting interference by this Tribunal. The OA is dismissed being devoid of merit. No costs.
(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
(csk)
Signed By:C SADISH
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.11.2025
16:20