Karnataka High Court
The Union O F India, vs B B Joshi S/O. B.R. Joshi, on 25 July, 2012
Bench: N.Kumar, H.S.Kempanna
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25 T H DAY OF JULY, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. KEMPANNA
WRIT PETI TION Nos.63430-431/2012(S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
1. The Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi-11.
2. The Chief Post Master General,
Karnataka Circle, Bangalore-01.
3. The Post Master General,
North Karnataka Region,
Dharwad.
PETITIONERS
(By Sri Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, Advocate)
AND:
1. Shri B.B.Joshi,
S/o B.R.Joshi,
Aged about 47 years,
PA (CO)
-2-
O/O, The Post Master General,
North Karnataka Region,
Dharwad.
2. Sri Shyamshunder Ekbote,
S/o Sri Hanumantharao,
Aged about 46 years,
PA (TBOP), O/o the
Post Master General,
North Karnataka Region,
Dharwad.
... RESPONDENTS.
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set-aside
the order passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore dated
14.10.2011 passed in O.A.No.459/2009.
These petitions coming on for ORDERS
regarding non-compliance of office objections
this day, N.Kumar J., made the following:
O R D E R
The Union of India has preferred these writ petitions challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore on 14.10.2011 granting relief prayed for in the application.
-3-
2. The impugned order discloses, the tribunal had granted relief in Original Application No.541/2009, after considering the rival contentions by a reasoned order. Therefore, for the same reasons, the applications filed by the respondents were allowed. The Union of India had challenged the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.541/2009 before this Court in W.P. No. 13450/2012 and other connected matters. This Court by order dated 28.05.2012 dismissed the said writ petitions. While dismissing, at para 12 and 13, this is what has been stated by this Court.
"12. In the instant case, it is not a case of promotion to the next higher post on the basis of the eligibility condition prescribed for the higher post being satisfied by the employees. Because they have not been given -4- promotion and they are all working for a suitable length of time, these scheme are introduced to give them monetary benefits. It is a case of financial upgradation. The only criteria for the benefit of the said scheme is the number of years of service put in by these employees. Therefore, seniority is not the criteria. But none the less the 3 earlier circulars noticed the anomaly in the instant case and clarified the position. When a common gradation list was prepared by merging several posts which are not equal and a lesser pay scale was fixed for that post, an option was given to the persons who are in a higher pay scale on account of a promotion to opt for the new pay scale and they were given the benefit to retain the higher pay scale which they were already drawing. That is how all the se applicants who had got the promotion to the next higher grade and who are all drawing a -5- higher pay scale opted for the new post though the pay scale was less as they were permitted to retain the higher pay scale. Sri Madhava Rao though joined the service earlier to all of them, got into the higher post subsequent to these applicants getting into the higher post on merger of these posts. When the gradation list was prepared, Sri Madhava Rao was very much junior to these applicants. Sri Madhava Rao was granted this upgradation of financial benefit taking into consideration the entry into service, though Sri Madhava Rao was much junior to these applicants, he was paid a higher pay scale than his seniors in the gradation list. It is in that context, a request was made to give them the said benefit from the date the said Sri Madhava Rao was granted though these persons had not fulfilled the number of years of experience from the date of Sri -6- Madhava Rao was given the benefit. To overcome such anomaly, which had crept in, the first three circulars were issued and the benefit was extended to these applicants. Strangely when the last Circular was issued, they have ignored this anomaly. They have relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court which has no application to the facts of this case and on that basis the benefit which are already extended to these persons were said to be denied. It is in those circumstances, the Calcutta High Court and the Orissa High Court have held that notwithstanding the fact that these applicants, who had not completed the number of years of service as they were senior to said Sri Madhava Rao prior to the merger as well as after merger and they had been promoted earlier to Madhava Rao in the cadre of UDC, by implementation of these schemes, a junior cannot become -7- senior in terms of monetary benefits. That is how probably as of one time settlement they also have been extended the said benefits. The said benefit extended to them is just and equitable and the latest Circular, dated 17.05.2000 is unjust and it cannot be enforced. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order.
13. We do not find any infirmity, which calls for interference, as it is both legally valid and just. Petitions are rejected."
Following the aforesaid judgment, these writ petitions are also dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE mkc