Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Bipin Bihari Dutta vs Deptt Of Posts on 23 March, 2023
:: 1 :: OA/050/00200/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
O.A. No. 050/00200/2023
050/00
Date of Order:23rd March, 2023
CORAM
HON'BLE MR M.C. VERMA,
VERMA MEMBER [J]
HON'BLE MR. SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, MEMBER [A]
Bipin Bihari Dutta, s/o Late Girihardhari Dutta,
Retd Sub Postmaster Kaluahi S.O. in Madhubani Postal Dn
Resident of village
village-Kewatpur,
Kewatpur, P.O.-Basopatti,
P.O. District-
Madhubani
Madhubani-847209.
.......... Applicant.
By Advocate ::- Shri S.K. Tiwary
-Versus
Versus-
1. The Union of India through the Secretary cum D.G.,
Government of Ministry of Communications & IT, Department
of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Department of Posts, Bihar
Circle, Patna 800001.
3. The Postmaster GeneGeneral
ral Northern Region, Department of
Posts, Muzaffarpur 842002.
4. The General Manager (Finance) Department of Posts GPO
Complex Patna
Patna-800001.
5. Superintendent of Post Offices Madhubani Dn Madhubani
847209.
......... Respondents.
By Advocate ::- Shri Rabindra Kumar Choubey.
O R D E R (O R A L)
M.C. Verma, M[J]
1. The applicant has preferred this OA for grant of 3rd MACP w.e.f. 2013 & the arrear with interest.
interest The OA is at notice stage hearing & having received advance copy, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Choubey Choubey, Advocate has appeared for the respondents. Heard.
2. Crux of facts pleaded in the OA is that applicant was appointed as Postal Assistant in August 1983, was given time bound promo promotion w.e.f. 12.08.2003 & BCR promotion benefit :: 2 :: OA/050/00200/2023 given w.e.f. 2008 and he has superannuated from service on 31/01/2016 31/01/2016.That as per guideline, dated 29.09.2021, 29.09.2021 issued by D.G. Posts he is entitled for 3rd MACP w.e.f. 2013 and that similarly situated persons filed OA 719/1996 to 727/1996 in CAT Bombay Bench Camp Nagpur for the same benefits and said OA was allowed on 31.08.2010.That similar benefit was extended to 161 applicants of Telangana Circle by High Court of Judicature of Hyderabad in WP MP No.21403/2016 & in W.P. No.17400 of 2016. That applicant did file representat representation dated 27.12.2021 before the respondents for grant of 3rd MACP as per Rules, which is pending.
3. Mr. S.K. Tiwari, Advocate, appearing for applicant urged that four OAs OAs,, including this OA have been filed by the applicant applicant, that the third OA, namely OA no. 800/2015, 800/2015 was relating to the MACP in issue and while disposing OA no. 800/2015 liberty was granted to the applicant to approach the departmental authority and applicant has preferred representation but his representation has not been decided yet. He urged that before superannuation applicant had completed thirty year of service, he was appointed as Postal Assistant in August 1983 and did retire on 31.01.2016; and therefore is entitled for 3rd MACP.
4. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Chobey, Advocate, appearing for respondents did oppose the maintainability of the OA and urged that applicant has preferred th this OA suppressing material facts, that applicant was holding the post of GDS when he was :: 3 :: OA/050/00200/2023 selected for RTP (Reserved Train Pool), was sent for training and on completion of training joined as RTP on 25.11.1983 and was regularized against the post of Postal Assistant only on 27.07.1987 27.07.1987. That this Tribunal & the Hon'ble High Court time & again, in different OA & in CWJC of the applicant has held that service of the applicant as RTP cannot be counted for the purpose of financial up gradation and he is not entitled for 3rd MACP but applicant is misusing the process and has again filed this OA. He referred the deci decision dated 17/11/21 passed in OA no. 800/2015 of the applicant and added that in said decision also the Tribunal did find suppressing of facts by the applicant. He request that this OA is nothing but abuse of process of court and may be dismissed with exemplary mplary cost.
5. Considered the submissions & perused the record minutely. Applicant in instant OA has pleaded that he was appointed as Postal Assistant in August 1983, has superannuated on 31.01.2016 and thus had completed more than thirty years of service before superannuation but this fact that he was appointed as Postal Assistant in August 1983 is contradicted by his own case as was set out in his previous OAs. The true facts of applicant's case, transpiring from decisio decisionn of his previous OA No. 880/2015, copy of which is on the record, is that he when was holding the post of GDS was selected for RTP (Reserved Train Pool), was sent for training on 25th August 1983, after completion of training :: 4 :: OA/050/00200/2023 joined as RTP on 25.11.1983 and was regularized against the post of Postal Assistant on 27.07.1987 only.
6. Applicant previously has filed OA No. 653/2004 as well which also yielded into dismissal. Against Dismissal of OA No. 653/2004 applicant did prefer CWJC No. 5265/2011 which also was dismissed. In OA No. 653/2004 applicant did claim for regularisation of his service w.e.f. 25.08.1983 and said submission was rejected by the Tribunal holding that period of service rendered as RTP cannot be counted as regular service against a substantive post and he cannot claim the benefit of this post of RTP. CWJC No. 5265/2011 of applicant, challenging the Order of Tribunal, was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court on 28th the Tribunal February 2012 2012.
7. Suppressing past legal history & raising grievances of non grant of 3rd MACP, applicant did prefer OA No. 800/2015 contending that period of service rendered as RTP (Reserved Train Pool Pool) had to be counted for qualifying service and adding this period of service as RTP to his service rendered after regularization the total qualifying service of him would be more than 30 years. Prayer made in OA No. 800/2015, 800/2015 mutates mutandis was for a direction to the respondents to count his service period from August 1983.
8. After notice in OA No. 800/2015 detailed WS was filed by the respondent and during final hearing of OA No. 800/2015 it was admitted by the counsel for applicant that it is true :: 5 :: OA/050/00200/2023 that it was held in OA No. 653/2004 that the period of service of RTP cannot be counted as period of regular service and for financial up gradation gradation.
9. It can be said without hesitation that regarding same prayer as has been made in OA in hand , applicant previously has preferred OA no. 653/2004 & OA No. 800/2015 and the verdict of those OA as relates to grant of financial up gradation (3rd MACP) was against the applicant applicant.. It is significant to quote operative portion of Order dated 17/11/2021 passed in OA No. 800/15 (the last OA of the applicant). The operative portion of said Or Order is in from Para 8 to 11 and said paragraphs are reproduced herein below:
below:-
"8. Considered the submissions advanced. In Para 7 of instant O.A. declaration of the applicant is :-
: "that he has not previously filed any application, Writ Petition or suit regarding arding the matter in respect has made, before any court of any court or any other bench of the Tribunal nor any such application, writ petition or suit pending before any of them".
9. It can be said without hesitation that previously regarding the issue of period rendered as RTP applicant at-at least filed O.A. 653/2004 and while rejecting the said OA, the Tribunal in its Order dated 4th March 2010 held:- "In the light of examination of the case and the clear cut observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a concurrent Bench of this Tribunal as cited above the applicant cannot in any manner count the period of his RTP Pool services towards regular service in a substantive post, and cannot claim the benefit of it being counted for the purpose of Time Bound Advancement A also. In the result, this O.A does not survive and is liable to be rejected."
10. CWJC No. 5265 of 2011, preferred by applicant challenging the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. :: 6 :: OA/050/00200/2023 653/2004 has been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court and while passing an elaborate order Hon'ble High Court also arrived on conclusion that no right will accrue for counting such service as regular service in a substantive post. Relevant portion of judgment dated 28th February 2012 passed in CWJC No.5265 of 2011 is reproduced herein below:-
"In In our considered view the issue as to whether the period for which petitioner worked in the Reserved Trained Pool Scheme cannot be counted towards regular service in a substantive post for the purpose of claiming benefit of Time Tim Bound Promotion. The Judgment of the Supreme Court has been extracted by the learned Tribunal and paragraph 10 of that Judgment clearly settles the issue that those employees who have obtained the benefit of absorption into regular service because of R.T.P. .P. Scheme cannot at the same time claim additional benefits on the basis of what has been given to the casual labourers. It was explained that such benefit is unwarranted because the period for which they claim their benefits is the period during which suchch benefits were not available to casual labourers.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to distinguish petitioner's case on facts by trying to emphasize that under the R.T.P. Scheme the petitioner was engaged for a considerable period without break and it is not that he worked only intermittently.
In our considered view, the issue is not dependent upon the number of days a casual labourer worked in the R.T.P. Scheme but upon the right flowing from such a scheme. As explained by the Supreme Court, rt, no right will accrue for counting such service as regular service in a substantive post. Hence, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed."
11. The applicant thus can be said to have suppressed the material facts No relief in n present scenario of facts can be granted by the Tribunal in this OA, the OA deserves dismissal and hence is dismissed."
dismissed.
:: 7 :: OA/050/00200/2023
10. Learned counsel for applicant has also argued that while dismissing the OA No. 800/ 800/15, 15, liberty was granted to the applicant to approach the authority. It is correct that liberty was granted but not for re re-agitating agitating the issue of financial up gradation (3rd MACP). After dictating dismissal of OA No. 800/15 applicant's counsel did urge that due to inadvertence some fact facts remains to be mentioned in OA, department authority can redress his genuine grievance but dismissal of this OA may impede the applicant and therefore he was granted liberty to approach the department authority for redressing of his genuine grievance if he is of the view that in prevailing legal and factual position he can approach the departmental authority for redressing of his those other grievance observing that dismissal of this OA (OA No.800/2015) shall not to be an impediment for him approach the departmental partmental authority.
11. This OA has been preferred with distorted facts and claiming the relief which had already been denied not only by this Tribunal but had also been set at rest by Hon'ble High Court in CWJC No.5265 of 2011 of the applicant. The OA deserves des dismissal dismissal, not simplicities but with Cost. Accordingly the OA is dismissed with cost, which is quantified to be Rs. 25,000 25,000-/(Rs.
twenty five hundred only).
Sd/- Sd/-
[Sunil Kumar Sinha] [M.C. Verma]
Member [A] Member [J]
sks/-
:: 8 :: OA/050/00200/2023