Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dheeraj Pal vs D/O Post on 29 August, 2024
1
OA 823/2020
Item No.41/C-II
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No. 823/2020
This the 29th day of August, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
1. Sh. Dheeraj Pal,
Aged about 58 years
S/o Sh. Bhoop Singh,
R/o DDA Flat No.632, Janta Pul,
Pul Prahaladpur, PO Badarpur,
Delhi (Working as HSG-II, Distt. Court, Tis Hazari)
2. Sh. Balbir Singh,
Aged about 58 years
S/o Late Raghbir Singh, R/o Beniwal Street,
Back Side Bansal Iron Foundory Samalakha,
Distt. Panipat, Haryana-132101
(Working as Post Master, Nimri Village, Delhi)
3. Mrs. Kamlesh Nanda,
Aged about 56 years,
W/o late Brij Mohan Nanda,
R/o C-1/217, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi-110053
(Working as SPM, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052)
4. Sh. Sohan Lal,
Aged about 61 years-
Sh. Ganga Ram,
R/o B-108, Gali No.3,
Brij Puri, Delhi-110094 (Ex-Sub Post Master)
... Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. S.K. Gupta)
Versus
Union of India through
1. Secretary
Department of Posts,
2
OA 823/2020
Item No.41/C-II
Ministry of Communication & IT,
Dak Bhawan, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi
2. Chief Post Master General,
Department of Posts,
Meghdoot Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
3. Director Postal Services,
Department of Posts,
Meghdoot Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
4. Supdt. of Post Office,
Delhi North Postal Division,
Department of Posts. Civil Lines,
Delhi-110054
... Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. S.N. Verma)
3
OA 823/2020
Item No.41/C-II
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) :
The applicants, four in numbers, had challenged the orders/communication dated 08.01.2020 and 10.01.2020 issued by the respondents rejecting the claim of the applicants for counting arrear for period during which they served as Reserved Trained Pool (RTP) as their regular service for all purposes. The applicants have prayed for the following reliefs in the present OA:-
"(i) quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 08.01.2020, 10.01.2010, 10.01.2020 and 10.01.2020 (Annexure-A-1 Colly);
(ii). direct the respondents to take into consideration the services rendered by each of the applicant under Reserved Trained Pool as referred in para 4.2 of the OA as a regular service and consider all career prospects of the applicants based upon the aforesaid RTP service as regular service and award all consequential benefits;
(iii). May also pass any further order(s), direction(s) as be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice:"
2. The respondents have filed counter reply and the applicants have filed rejoinder reiterating their claim and grounds in support thereof.
3. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance, we have also gone through the pleadings on record and various orders/judgments. 4 OA 823/2020 Item No.41/C-II
4. The undisputed facts are that the applicants were appointed as short duty Postal Assistant in the year 1983 and 1985 under RTP scheme with various terms and conditions. Subsequently, all the applicants were regularized on different dates between 1987 and 1990, when the vacancies arose. The respondents had introduced the RTP Scheme in the year 1980 and as per the said Scheme, a panel of such persons which was maintained, could not be covered under the number of vacancies declared for regular appointment as PA/SA. The grievances of the applicants in the present case as recorded hereinabove are that their services as RTP before regularization of their services have not been counted by the respondents for career progression and/or in any other service benefits.
5. It is also undisputed that identically placed persons approached the various Benches of this Tribunal from time to time and the Tribunal has allowed the claim of similarly placed persons in those OAs. When the present applicants also preferred representations, the respondents have passed the impugned order(s), which read as under:-
"Subject: Representations regarding counting of Service rendered under RTP Scheme in PA/SA Cadre regarding 5 OA 823/2020 Item No.41/C-II With reference to the representation Dated NIL regarding counting of service rendered under RTP Scheme. In this connection, Circle Office vide letter No. Staff/RTP Case/2018 Dated 16/18.06.2019 w.r.t Directorate letter No. 18-12/2017-SPB-II Dated 26.042019, whereby it has been clarified that the case specific as such, orders of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana cannot be extended to others.
This is for your kind information."
6. Learned counsel for the applicants, in support of their claim as raised in the present OA, has argued that identical issue as involved in the present OA had already been adjudicated by a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal wherein the benefit of services rendered by RTPs has been extended to similarly placed persons for the purposes of financial benefits and in support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on order/judgment dated 20.09.2023 in OA No. 3466/2019 titled Raksh Pal Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., wherein various judgments of co-ordinate benches and of High Court have been referred and considered, which are as follows:-
"(i) All India Postal Employees Union vs. UOI & Ors.
Before the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal in T.A. No.82/1986 decided on 16.12.1986.
(ii) Sanjay Sumantrao Sathe & Ors. vs UOI & Ors. Before the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.719/1996 and batch decided on 31.08.2010.
(iii) Union of India Vs.The Registrar, CAT, Chennai & Ors. before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. Nos.34944 and 33298 of 2016 and decided on 24.07.2019
(iv) Order of Madras Bench of the Tribunal in MA No.708/2018 in OA No.1734/2018 dated 28.03.2019. 6 OA 823/2020 Item No.41/C-II
(v) Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad dated 27.02.2023 in WP (C) No 17400/2016 titled Union of India & Ors. Vs. V. Ravi Krishna & Ors."
7. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the order of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal referred to in the case of Raksh Pal Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) has attained finality inasmuch as they have either been implemented and/or Writ Petition/Special Leave Petition filed against them has been dismissed. Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned counsel placed on record the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) vide Diary No. 1868/2024 titled Union of India & Ors. vs. V. Ravi Krishna & Ors., whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed the same.
8. Furthermore, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 9849/2014 titled State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others dated 17.10.2014, to contend that once the issue has been decided, it was obligatory at the end of the respondents to extend the benefit to all similarly placed persons and not to compel all the similarly placed persons to approach the Courts and Tribunals.
7OA 823/2020 Item No.41/C-II
9. Mr. S.N. Verma, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, by referring to the assertions made in the counter reply has argued that the applicants herein are seeking benefits of their services which were of casual and temporary in nature and such engagement, does not guarantee that they would be regularized as and when their turn comes. In support of his arguments, he invites our attention to paras 4 and 5 of the counter reply, wherein it has been asserted by the respondents that the Hon'ble Apex Court in CA No. 5739/2005 (UOI vs. Sh. Mathivanan) vide judgment dated 09.06.2006 had held that ad-hoc services rendered in APS by RTP personnel should be counted for the purpose of grant of financial upgradation under Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) Scheme, which was due to the fact that the said scheme did not mention "regular service" as eligibility for grant of financial upgradation under TBOP. It is also asserted by the respondents that Hon'ble Apex Court vide order/judgment dated 01.08.1997 in the case of UOI & Another vs. K. Sivados in CA No. 80-123 of 1996, discussed the case in detail and rejected the grant of productivity link bonus to RTP personnel. He, accordingly, submits that OA is bereft of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. 8 OA 823/2020 Item No.41/C-II
10. In rejoinder, Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned counsel has invited our attention to a common order in the matter of K.S. Beena Sub Postmaster & Others vs. Union of India represented by Secretary to Government of India & Others passed by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 79 & 119/2011 & batch (Annexure R-1) to contend that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. M. Mathivanan reported in 2006 SCC 57 has also been considered. He submits that not only the judgments but the entire scheme has been considered at length by the Tribunal in the said order.
11. In the case of Raksh Pal Singh (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has considered the order/judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court for State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 17400/2016, wherein paras 8 to 10 read as under:-
"8. The facts of the instant O.A are examined in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telengana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.17400/2016. It is seen that the facts, circumstances and prayer of the applicants have conclusively been decided by the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telengana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.17400/2016. However, the benefit of the same could not be extended to the applicants as the directions were specific and they were not party to the said Writ Petition. It is also noteworthy to mention that once the applicants have preferred their representations in terms of directions passed in OA No.4196/2018 and at the relevant time when the same were considered and decided, the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad was there, the respondents ought to have decided the same in terms of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble High Court. The only reason for 9 OA 823/2020 Item No.41/C-II non grant of the benefit was that the applicants were not party to that Writ Petition and the same is misplaced. While deciding the Writ Petition, the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana had observed as under :-
"7. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the view that the Tribunal has followed the judgment, dated 16.12.1986, passed in T.A. No.82 of 1986 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalapur Bench, which was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.11313 of 1987, dated 11.05.1988, and even the Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, has directed the respondents therein to follow the judgment of the Jabalpur Bench only. Therefore, there is no confusion at all for the petitioners to file the present Writ Petitions. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned common order passed by the Tribunal."
9. From the above, it is clear that the Hon‟ble High Court at Telangana was guided by the decision in SLP No.11313/1987 decided by the Hon‟ble Apex Court on 11.05.1988. It is settled preposition of law that in the matter of pay scales, the respondents were obliged to follow the dicta of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court followed by the Hon‟ble High Courts/Tribunals. The respondents were obliged to extend the benefit to the applicants suo motu. The applicants have been unnecessarily forced to approach the Tribunal.
10. For the reasons quoted hereinabove, the OA is allowed with a direction to the respondents, to extend the benefit to the applicants in terms of the aforesaid decision of Hon‟ble High Court for the State of Telangana in WP No.17400 and 17425 of 2016. The applicants shall be entitled for grant of all consequential benefits flowing therefrom including MACP and pension, which shall be fixed accordingly, wherever applicable. There shall be no order as to costs."
12. In the case of Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 22 has held as under:-
"22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under.
22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more 10 OA 823/2020 Item No.41/C-II emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently."
13. In view of the aforesaid facts binding precedent, the OA deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed with following directions:-
(i) The impugned orders dated 08.01.2020 and 10.01.2020 are quashed and set aside.
(ii) The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court for State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 17400/2016 to the applicants in present OA.
(iii) The applicants shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing therefrom including upgradation under MACP Scheme, pensionary benefits etc., as applicable.
(iv) The respondents shall comply with the aforesaid directions as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
11OA 823/2020 Item No.41/C-II
14. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/akshaya/