Patna High Court - Orders
Bipin Bihari Dutta vs The Union Of India & Ors on 28 February, 2012
Author: Shiva Kirti Singh
Bench: Shiva Kirti Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5265 of 2011
======================================================
Bipin Bihari Dutta Son of Late Giribar Dhari Dutta, Resident of Village-
Kamalpur, P.S.- Basopatti, District- Madhubani, at present posted and
working as Postal Assistant in the Office of Superintendent of Post Offices,
Madhubani, Police Station- Madhubani, District- Madhubani
.... .... Petitioner.
Versus
1.The Union Of India through the Secretary Ministry of Tele
Communication, New Delhi.
2.The Director General of Posts, New Delhi.
3.The Chief Post Master General, The Bihar Circle, Patna.
4.The Post Master General, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur.
5.The Superintendent of Post Office, Madhubani, Division, Madhubani.
.... .... Respondents.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. U.B.Roy,Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta,C.G.C.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
ORAL ORDER
6 28-02-2012Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Postal Department.
This writ petition is directed against order dated 4th March, 2010 (Annexure-13) passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, whereby O.A. No.653 of 2004 preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed on the basis of a Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Union Of India and another vrs. K.N.Sivadas and others ; reported in A.I.R. 1997 SC 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.5265 of 2011 (6) dt.28-02-2012 2 3100.
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 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.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 such 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 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.5265 of 2011 (6) dt.28-02-2012 3 the Supreme Court, 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.
(Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) AnilKrSinha/- (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)