Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
V S Dakshinamurthy vs M/O Communications on 8 April, 2024
i OA 310/00199/2019 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH OA/310/00199/2019 Dated Monday the 08 day of April Two Thousand Twenty Four CORAM : HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, Member (A) & HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN, Member (J) V. 5. Dakshinamoorthy, S/o. V. S. Subramanian, No. 71-A, Dhairiyalakshmi Street, Rajesweri Nagar, Selaiyur, Chennai -- 600073. .. Applicant By Advocate MR. S. RAMASWAMYRAJARAJAN Vs. 1. Union of India Rep by The Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai - 600002. 2. The Superintendent RMS, Chennai Sorting Division, Chennai -- 600008. ... Respondents By Advocate MR. SU. SRINIVASAN, SCGSC ee C) 2 OA 310/00199/2019 ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Member (J)) By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief:
"(i) To quash the impugned order No. OA 827/2018, dated 05.11.2018, passed by the 2nd respondent, {il} To direct the respondents to grant the benefit of Financial Upgradation under MACP Scheme to the applicant with effect from 28.07.2015, ie., on completion of 30 years of service by taking into account the period rendered by him in APS as Warrant Officer and fix his Pay and allowances accordingly and to give all consequential benefits such as arrears of pay and allowances with reasonable interest. And
(iii) To pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case with cost."
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The applicant was selected as Sorting Assistant in the year 1981 and kept under RTP (Reserved Trained Pool). While working as such, he had volunteered to join the Army Postal Service and worked in the APS, from 1985 to 1988, as Warrant Officer and, on completion of his tenure, he returned to the Postal Department and was allowed to join as Sorting Assistant. Later on, he was granted financial upgradation under TBOP, taking into account the service rendered in APS. But, as the respondents have not granted
3 OA 310/00199/2019 the benefit of MACP by counting the service rendered in the APS, he made representation, dated 15.02.2018, requesting the respondents to extend the benefit given to one C. Mohanraj, who is the petitioner in W.P. No. 21293 of 2016, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Madras had granted the benefit of MACP to him, taking into account the service rendered in the APS as Warrant Officer, as the applicant is also a similarly placed person like the petitioner in the W.P. No. 21293 of 2016. But, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of the applicant on the ground that adhoc/contractual service rendered, prior to regular appointment, cannot be taken into account for MACP. Agegrieved by this, the present OA is filed.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention to the fact that the relief sought in the present OA is no more res integra and it is squarely covered by the order, dated 07.12.2022, passed by this Tribunal in OA 498 of 2020.
4. He further drew our attention to the fact that the Hon. Madras High Court has allowed similar relief in W.P. No. 21293 of 2016, dated 08.12.2017. The relevant portions of the order are extracted below:
4 OA 310/00199/2019 "5, On a perusal of the judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, in O.P. (CAT) No.33 of 2016 (2), dated 09.02.2016, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that the said order squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case, the first applicant therein and others were appointed as Warrant Officers in the Army Postal Service in the regular service. The first applicant therein was regularly appointed on 28.05.1990 and he was discharged from the Army Postal Service on 27.06.1991.
Their appointments to the Army Postal Service was on regular service, though they were borne in the Postal Service in the Reserve Trained Pool. Therefore, it was held that their continuous service had to be reckoned from the dates on which they were appointed as Warrant Officers in the Army Postal Service. We are not having any second opinion over this aspect.
é. The petitioner herein has been appointed in the regular service in the Postal Department and thereafter, on his request, appointed as Warrant Officer in the Army Postal Service and having been discharged from such service, he joined the Postal Department without break in service. In view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court which squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we hereby quash the impugned order, dated 27.11.2015, passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.807 of 2014 and hold that the continuous service of the petitioner herein had to be reckoned by taking into account the service rendered by the petitioner in Army Postal Service as Warrant Officer and accordingly the second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme shall be conferred."
S. When the matter is put forth before the learned counsel for the respondents, they could not controvert the same and relied upon the reply filed by them.
6. In view of the same, we find that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon. Madras High Court in W.P. No. 21293 of 2016, dated 08.12.2017, and also by this Tribunal's order in OA 498 of 2020, dated 07.12.2022. Hence the OA is § OA 310/00199/2019 allowed as under: © "i) The impugned order, dated 05.11.2018, passed by the grt respondent, rejecting the claim of the applicant is hereby quashed and set aside.
ii) The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of Financial Upgradation under MACP Scheme to the applicant with effect from 28.07.2015, ie., on completion of 30 years of service by taking into account the period rendered by him in APS as Warrant Officer and fix his Pay and allowances accordingly and to give all consequential benefits such as arrears of pay and allowances.
iii) The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, the amount is not paid within a period of three months, then without prejudice to any other remedy that the applicant may have, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum."
In the result, the OA is allowed. No order as to costs.