Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
M Rajamanickam vs D/O Post on 11 January, 2023
1 OA 1938/2014 & batch
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
O0A/310/01938/2014 a/w OA/310/00029/2014 , OA/310/00896/2014 .
QA/310/00994/2014 , OA/310/01483/2014 , OA/310/01733/2014 ,
OA/310/01999/2014 , OA/310/02000/2014 , OA/310/02001/2014
Dated Wednesday the 11" day of January Two Thousand Twenty Three
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. MANJULA DAS, Member (J)
HON'BLE MR. T. JACOB, Member (A)
OA 1938/2014 :-
L.Anantha Ram Singh S/o. Shri. M. Logu Singh,
Residing at New No. 59, Old No. 28,
Bangaru Street, Mount Road,
Chennai 600002. ... Applicant
By Advocate M/s. .. M. Ramesh
Vs
1.Union of India,
rep by the Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai, Chennai 600002,
2.The Senior Superintendent, RMS,
Airmail Sorting Division,
Meenambakkam, Chennai 600027. .... Respondents
By Advocate Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC
OA 29/2014 :-
T. Paulsamy, S/o. T. Thambusamy Pillai,
D-303, Housing Unit,
Kollampalayam, Erode 638002. ....Applicant
By Advocate M/s, R. Malaichamy
SRA
2 OA 1938/2014 & batch
Vs
1.Union of India,
rep by the Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai 600002,
2.The Postmaster General,
Western Region (TN),
Coimbatore 641002.
3.Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Erode Division, Erode 638001. .... Respondents
By Advocate Mr. G. Dhamedaran
OA 896/2014 :;-
M.Rajamanickam, S/o. Muthusamy,
No. 63, Ayya Goundar Street,
Valapady 636115, Salem District, .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s. R. Malaichamy
Vs
{Union of India,
rep by the Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai, Chennai 600002.
2.The Postmaster General,
Western Region (TN),
Coimbatore 641002.
3.Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Salem East Division, Salem 636001. ....Respondents
By Advocate Mr. C. Ajith Kumar, Mr. S. Nagarajan
OA 994/2014 :-
A. Liakath Alikhan, S/o. A. Abdul Majeethkhan,
D.No. 29/109, No. 1, Pillaiyar Koil Street,
Ponnamapet, Salem 636001.
By Advocate M/s. R. Malaichamy
Vs
1.Union of India,
rep by The Postmaster General,
Western Region (TN),
Coimbatore 641002.
2.Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Salem East Division, Salem 636001.
By Advocate Mr. K. Rajendran
OA 1483/2014 :-
S.Karthikeyan, S/o. V. Subramaniam,
No. 27, Sri Maha Ganapathy Nagar,
R.Ponnapuram PO,
Mahalingapuram, Pollachi 624002.
By Advocate M/s. R. Malaichamy
Vs
1.Union of India,
rep by its Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communication & IT,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi 110001.
2.Superintendent of Post Offices,
Pollachi Division, Pollachi 642001.
By Advocate Mr. K. Rajendran
OA 1733/2014 :-
3
OA 1938/2014 & batch
. Applicant
... Respondents
.... Applicant
.- Respondents
4
S. Noor Mohammed, S/o. Sarvar Hussain,
Ariyur Street, ,
Southside Railway Line,
Pethanaiken Palayam Village & Post,
OA 1938/2014 & batch
Attur Taluk, Salem District. Pin 636109. ... Applicant
By Advocate M/s. R. Malaichamy
Vs
1.Union of India,
rep by its Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communication & IT,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi 110001.
2.The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Road, Chennai 600002.
3.The Postmaster General,
Western Region (TN),
Coimbatore 641002. .
4.Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Salem East Division,
Salem 636001. .. -Respondents
By Advocate Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC
OA 1999/2014 :-
R.Sekar, S/o. Shri, S. Ramamoorthy,
Residing at F-5, Elite Apartments,
No. 16, Second Main Road, J.B.Estate,
Avadi, Chennai 600054. ... Applicant
By Advocate M/s. K. M. Ramesh
Vs
1.Union of India,
rep by the Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Ama Salai, Chennai 600002.
2.The Senior Superintendent, RMS,
Airmail Sorting Division,
Meenambakkam, Chennai 600027.
By Advocate Mr. S. Nagarajan
OA 2000/2014 :-
R.Subramanian, S/o. Shri, S. Ranganathan,
Residing at Plot No. 3, 4" Cross Street,
Saraswathi Nagar Extension, Thiruninravur,
Chennai 602024.
By Advocate M/s. K. M. Ramesh
Vs
1.Union of India,
rep by the Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai, Chennai 600002.
2.The Superintendent, RMS,
Chennai Sorting Division,
OA 1938/2014 & batch
... . Respondents
.- Applicant
Egmore, Chennai 600008. ... Respondents
By Advocate Mr. S. Nagarajan
OA 2001/2014 :-
K. Sivaramakrishnan, S/o. Shri. M, Kannan,
Residing at No. 13/7, Ambedkar 1* Cross Street,
Nanganallur, Chennai 600061.
By Advocate M/s. K. M. Ramesh
Vs
....Applicant
1.Union of India,
rep by the Chief Postmaster Gerieral,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai, Chennai 600002,
2.The Senior Superintendent, RMS,
Airmail Sorting Division,
Meenambakkam, Chennai 600027. ....Respondents
By Advocate Mr. S. Nagarajan
OA 1938/2014 & batch
7 OA 1938/2014 & batch
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Member(J)) Since the subject matter and the relief sought are similar, all these OAs are clubbed together and disposed of by way of a common order. For the sake of brevity, the facts are delineated from OA No. 1938/2014, 2, The applicants have prayed for a directions to the respondents to grant the benefit of 2" MACP / 3 MACP as their case may be with arrears of pay and allowances and also to revise and refix their pension.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are eligible for grant of 2" / 3" MACP since they have completed more than 20/30 years of service in the Department. The applicants were promoted to the post of Sorting Assistant/Postal Assistant by way of Competitive Examination and on completion of 16 years they were granted TBOP benefit and thereafter on completion of 10 years BCR benefits were given. The applicants claim that as per the judgment of Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal made in OA 353/2011 and batch cases the appointment of the applicants to the post of Sorting Assistant/Postal Assistant through a process of examination could not be treated as a case of promotion or financial upgradation and therefore the applicant is eligible for 3° MACP benefits. Hence this OA.
4. The respondents have filed detailed reply in all the OAs. It is stated that the applicants were promoted to the cadre of Sorting Assistant/Postal Assistant 8 OA 1938/2014 & batch through LGO examination, which is a promotion, in which there is difference in pay and thereafter he was granted TBOP and BCR. Thus the applicants were granted three financial upgradations, before getting promoted to LSG cadre. As the applicants have already been granted three financial upgradations, they are not eligible for any further upgradation. Hence, the respondents pray for the dismissal of the OAs.
5. Heard both sides and perused the material placed on record.
6. Learned counsel for respondents, Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC has filed a compilation consisting of the letter dt. 29.09.2021] regarding clarification on MACP scheme along with judgments relied by them in support of their contentions as under:~ i. Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras dt. 27.04.2022 in WP No. 16818 of 2016 and batch cases in the cases of N. Selvan Vs. Union of India and anr:
ii. Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dt. 11.08.2022 in WP No. 201842/2019 in the case of Union of India and ors Vs, Sri. Vishwanath;
iii. Order of Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal dt. 17,09.2019 in OA No. 1023/2014 & batch in the cases in Sri Siba Prasad Das Vs. Union of India & ors.
7. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel on both sides submit that in a similar matter this Tribunal has dismissed the OA and order of 9 OA 1938/2014 & batch the Tribunal has been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras by the applicants vide WP No. 16818 of 2016 and the same has been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (supra).
8. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that in similar issue, Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal after elaborate discussions in the case this Tribunal has disposed of a batch of matters in OA 1023/2014 (supra). The operative portion of the order which reads as under: paras 15 to 18 "15, From the discussions above, it is clear that as per the Recruitment Rules, 1971 under which the selection to the post of Postal Assistant has been carried out, 50% of the posts are to be filled up by promotion through LDCE and 50% by direct recruitment. As held by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Dev Karan Mahala (supra) and Ram Karan Kumhar (supra), the appointment/selection to a higher post through LDCE is to be treated in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. The decision in the case of Dev Karan Mahala (supra) has been challenged by filing the SLP before Hon'ble Apex Court, which is pending as observed in the order dated 30.9.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) 2806/2016 in the case of Union of India vs. Shakeel Ahmad Burmey. The order dated 18.7.2019 of this Tribunal in OA No. 702/2012, which has been cited by the applicant's counsel was passed following the judgment dated 5.8.2014 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India vs. Shakeel Ahmad Bumey, which was reviewed subsequently in the R.P. No. 441/2014 as discussed in the order dated 17.11.2015 of Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 219/2015 (vide para 11 of this order}. The fact that the judgment dated 3.8.2014 was reviewed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court subsequently was not considered by the Tribunal while passing the order dated 18,7.2019 in the OA No. 702/2012. Further, in the said order, the provisions of the Recruitment Rules of 1971, which are extracted in the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Karnal Division, Karnal and others vs. Nand Kishore & another Civil Writ Petition No. 4829/2015 vide para 12 above, have not been considered. For these reasons, the order dated 18.7.2019 of this Bench of the Tribunal will not be applicable to the present OA,
16. We take note of the fact that in such cases, in spite of the litigations and disputes raised by the employees in different coordinate Benches of this Tribunal on this issue, no clarification or 16 guidelines regarding (_) 10 OA 1938/2014 & batch the point whether the selection under the Recruitment Rules in question is to be treated as promotion or direct recruitment has been issued by the respondents/competent authority. In case the notification for the LBCE and appointment order of the selected candidates mention clearly the rules under which the selection is being made, Stating whether it is promotion or direct recruitment, then the disputes like the present O.A, can be avoided,
17. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are unable to allow the reliefs sought for in this OA as well as other OAs in this batch and are of the view that in view of the judgments as discussed above and taking into consideration the fact that the SLP (C) Diary No.4793 of 2019 in the case of Dev Karan Mahala v. Union of India is pending before Hon'ble Apex Court as observed in the order dated 30.9.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Cowt in W.P. (C) No. 2806/2016 in the case of Union of India vs. Shakee! Ahmad Bumey, the question at Para-8 of this order as to whether the appointment of the applicants as Postal Assistant through LDCE in these OAs can be considered as promotion or direct recruitment, can be answered finally after disposal of the SLP(C) Diary No.4793 of 2019. Accordingly, we dispose of these OAs with direction to the respondents to consider the grievance of the applicants in accordance with the orders of Hon'ble Apex Court in the SLP (C) Diary No.4793 of 2019 in the case of Dev Karan Mahala vs, Union of India. Under the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
18. The Registry is to send a copy of this order by Post to the Respondent No.i to consider action as deemed appropriate on Paragraph-16 of this order. "
9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submit that similar issue has been challenged before the other Benches of this Tribunal and the decisions are for and against the applicants therein and finally the matters are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Department vide memo No. 4- 7IMACPS/2019-PC dated 29.09.2021 submitted the details of the SLPs which is extracted herein below:
No. 4-7/MACPS/2019-PCC Government of India Ministry of Communications Department of Posts 11 OA 1938/2014 & batch Dak Bhawan, Sansad Mare, New Delhi-- 110001 Date : 29.09.2021 To
1.All Chief Postmasters General | Postmasters General 2,Chief General Manager, Parcel /BD / PLI Directorate / CEPT,
3.Director, RAKNPA / Directors of All PTCs
4.Addl. Director General, Army Postal Service, R.K.Puram, New Delhi
5.All General Managers (Finance) / Directors Postal Accounts Sub: Clarification on Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme -reg.
Sir / Madam, This refers to various references/representations seeking the benefit of financial upgradation under MACP Scheme by treating promotion earned through limited departmental competitive examination (LDCE) at par Direct Recruitment in terms of Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment dated 16.08.2016 in Special Leave Petition to Appeal (C} No. 4848/2016 in the case of D.Sivakumar,
2. In this regard, it is informed that Hon'ble Supreme Court had left the question of law open in D.Shivakumear case hence; the Hon'ble Apex Court has not decided the issue on merit. Therefore, there is no question of any binding precedent laid down by the Supreme Court.
3. Further, since the question of law on the issue as to whether the promotion eamed through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination {LDCE) is to be treated at par Direct Recruits or otherwise, is still under consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court in various similar tagged cases vis CA 4432/2019 Union of India Vs E. Sreeramulu, SLP (C) No. 023649/2019 Union of India Vs. K.Ranganatha Pillai, S.L.P. (Civil) No. 26561 of 2019 Kharati Lal & Others Vs UOI and SLP {€} No. 11997/2019 Dev Karan Mahala Vs UOl ete., the similar cases are to be defended on their merits on the basis of grounds provided vide this Directorate letter No. 15.11.2019,
4. As such, each and every case must be dealt on its merits as per the instructions of MACP Scheme. However, in order to make a better understanding on the issue vis-a- vis clarification issued vide this Directorate OM of even No. dated 06,09,2021, the following symbolic illustrations are mentioned below:-
i. If a Central Govt. employee, who was appointed (direct entry) as Postman, earns regular promotion to the post Postal Assistant (through LDCE), granted TROP and then eams another promotion to Inspector Posts cadre (trough LDCE), no financial upgradation under MACP Scheme shall be admissible to him/her. The modalities for financial upgradation and pay fixation thereon shall be as follows:
Event wet Pay Scale Remarks Postman 01/01/89 825-1200 Entry Grade Postal Assistant |01/01/92 4000-6000 Regular promotion through LDCE, Pay fixation under FR-
22) {aj(1). Reckoned as 17 offset MACP TBOP 01/01/08 GP Rs. 2800 | Pay fixation as per FR-22(1)(2)(1).
Reckoned as 2™ offset MACP.
Inspector Posts | 01/01/06 GPRs, 4600 |Regular promotion through LDCE. Pay fixation under FR-
22(T)(ai(i). Reckoned as 3" offset MACP, 12 OA 1938/2014 & batch ii. Ifa Central Gove. employee, who was appointed (direct entry) as MTS, eams three tegular promotions to the posts vis Ist Lewer Division Clerk (LDC), 2nd Junior Accouniant, 3rd Senior Accountant in Postal Accounts Offices before completion of 30 years of service from direct entry grade, no financial upgradation under MACP Scheme shall be admissible to him/her. The modalities for financial upgradation and pay fixation thereon shall be as follows:-
Event wet Pay Scale Remarks MTS / Sorter 01/01/87 825-1200 Entry Grade. Lbc OV01/96 3050-4590 |Reguiar promotion through LDCE. Pay fixation under FR-
22(7){a)(1). Reckoned as 1* offset MACP, Jr. Accountant 01/01/06 GPRs.2800 |Regular promotion through LDCE. Pay fixation under FR-
22(T(a)(1}. Reckoned as 2nd offset MACP.
Sr. Accountant OL/01/10 GP Rs. 4200 | Regular promotion. Pay fixation under FR-22(D(a}(1). Reckoned as 3" offset MACP.
5, Further, the competent authority has advised to all administrative units to ensure timely review and disposal, thereon, of all the pending representations/eases on the issue in the light of this clarification as well as that of issued vide this Directorate OM of even No. dated 06.09.2021. A tine of complinnee may also be appraised to this Directorate, ;
6. It is therefore, requested to bring. this clarification to the notice of all concerned immediately and ensure strict adherence in true spirit, Yours faithfully, (D.K., Tripathi) ADG (GDSA/PCC) Tel. -- 23096629 Email-adgeds@indiapost,fov.in Copy to :-
1. As per standard list.
2. CGM, CEPT for uploading the order on the India Post web site under Establishment subject,
3.Guard File,"
10. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants have no objection to dispose of the OAs subject to the outcome of the SLP as mentioned in the above said OA.
ll. Learned standing counsel for the respondents submit that OAs can be disposed of by taking into account all the SLPs pending before the Hon'ble 13 OA 1938/2014 & batch Supreme Court as mentioned in the OM.
12. In view of the above, as the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of different SLPs, the OAs are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit to the applicants as prayed for subject to the outcome of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP (C) Diary No.4793 of 2019 (supra).
13. No order as to costs.
~ pec Ee oe
- = rs awe (i ora