Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Chhail Bihari Singh vs Department Of Posts on 18 March, 2025
1
O.A. No. 745/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 745/2024
Order reserved on: 24.02.2025
Date of order: 18.03.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. LOK RANJAN, MEMBER (A)
Chhail Bihari Singh (Aged About 64 Yrs) S/O Late Rugani Singh
Ex. Sr. Acctt. O/O The General Manager (Finance), PAO, Jaipur
(Rajasthan) Resi-43/E, 3rd Phase Jhalana, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
(Group-B Non-Gazetted) 302004
(M) 8209337266, [email protected]
...APPLICANT
(By Advocate: Applicant in person)
VERSUS
1. The Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Communication, Department Of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad
Marg, New Delhi- 110001
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Rajasthan Circle, Govt.
Hostel, Jaipur (Rajasthan)-302001
3. The Chief Postmaster General, Uttar-Pradesh Circle,
Hazaratganj, Lucknow (UP)-226001
4. The General Manager (Finance), Postal Accounts, D-1,
Jhalana, Jaipur (Rajasthan)-302014
...RESPONDENTS
(By Advocate: Shri Manu Bhargava)
2
O.A. No. 745/2024
ORDER
Per : Hon'ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)
This Original Application had been filed by the Applicant upon being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur (Respondent No.2) to the extent that it disallowed counting of his past services in a different cadre while determining the financial upgradation under Accelerated Career Progression (A.C.P.)/ Modified Accelerated Career Progression (M.A.C.P.) Schemes.
2. Based on the pleadings of the Applicant, the relevant matrix of facts had emerged to be as follows briefly. The Applicant had initially joined in the Department of Posts as Postal Assistant (P.A.) on 10.05.1980 in the pay-scale of Rs.(260-480)/- in Mathura Postal Division. Subsequently, he was promoted as U.D.C.(SBCO) through Departmental Exam-1982 conducted by the Director-General, Posts & Telegraph (D.G., P&T) and appointed as such on 05.04.1983 in the pay-scale of Rs.(330-
560)/- by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices (S.S.P.O.s), Mathura Postal Division, with the specific remark that appointment of approved candidates after successful completion of the prescribed training will be subject to the final outcome of the Writ Petitions No. 3399-3402 of 1982 pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Later, the Applicant had been selected as Junior Accountant through the Auditor/Junior Accountant/U.D.C. Exam-1982 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (S.S.C.), New Delhi. On receiving the related offer of appointment dated 05.11.1984 for the post of Junior Accountant at the Office of General Manager (Finance) [G.M.(F)], Postal Accounts Office 3 O.A. No. 745/2024 (P.A.O.), Jaipur, the Applicant had purportedly furnished his technical resignation from his previous cadre/post - which was accepted on 19.11.1984 from the post of Postal Assistant - and had joined as Junior Accountant in the Office of G.M.(F), P.A.O., Jaipur on 30.11.1984. Eventually, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had vide Order dated 01.03.1995 dismissed the pending writ petitions No.3399-3402/1982 as having become infructuous.
3. The Applicant had meanwhile agitated various service issues
- inter alia those pertaining to his technical resignation at the time of joining as Junior Accountant, counting of his past services as P.A. and U.D.C. (SCBO) in the Department of Posts under the S.S.P.O.s Mathura Division, his seniority in the cadre of Junior Accountant as per his merit upon his selection by S.S.C. and the grant of A.C.P./M.A.C.P. Scheme benefits after counting of his previous services as P.A./U.D.C.(SCBO) etc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court eventually vide Order dated 29.10.2021 in the Writ Petition (Civil) No.1050/2021 had decided that :
"1 We are not inclined to entertain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in respect of essentially a service dispute which is sought to be raised by the petitioner. While petition is dismissed on the above ground, we leave it open to the petitioner to pursue such remedies as are available in law.
2 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."
4. Thereupon, the Applicant had filed O.A. No.905/2022 in the Hon'ble Principal Bench of this Tribunal at New Delhi, which had been finalized on 01.09.2023 with directions to the Chief Post Master General (C.P.M.G.), Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur to consider and decide the appeal dated 15.01.2021 of the Applicant made against the Order No.864 dated 21.05.2019 ; Orders No.(3706, 4 O.A. No. 745/2024 3708) dated 17.07.2020 and Order No.6042 dated 20.10.2020 of the General Manager (Finance), PAO, Jaipur - whereby the counting of past service of the Applicant herein, financial benefits at par with his purported immediate junior and further pay protection and benefits of upgradation as per A.C.P./M.A.C.P. Schemes etc. had been denied in effect. In consequence thereof, the C.P.M.G., Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur (Respondent No.2) had considered the said appeal dated 15.10.2021 of the Applicant herein in respect of the aforesaid matters as per relevant records, comments of concerned administrative authorities and prevailing rule position etc. ; and disposed of the same vide his Order dated 21.12.2023, holding that no merit was found in the said appeal and the same had been rejected.
5. Aggrieved by the rejection of his appeal dated 15.10.2021 vide the said Order dated 21.12.2023 of Respondent No.2, the Applicant had once again filed various O.A.s in respect of specific subjects/issues covered thereby. The P.T. No.299/2024 under Section-25 as well as the subject O.A. had initially been filed before the Hon'ble Principal Bench of this Tribunal at New Delhi by the Applicant - but he had eventually prayed to withdraw the same with liberty to file an O.A. before this Bench. Upon the Hon'ble Principal Bench of this Tribunal vide Order dated 22.11.2024 allowing him leave with liberty as prayed for, the Applicant had filed the present O.A. in the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal inter alia for the following substantive reliefs -
(i) That the entire record from the Respondents may kindly be called for relating to the case and after pursuing the same, the impugned order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Respondent No.2 (Annexure- A/01 Page-21-32) may kindly be quashed and set aside by allowing to Technical Resignation revised on dated 17.10.2014 (Annexure-A/7 Page- 5 O.A. No. 745/2024
57) as per outcome of the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CWP(s) No.3399-3402/1982 on 01.03.1995 (Annexure-A/4 Page-49) and allow to count his past service of the applicant rendered actually on the post of UDC(SBCO) Mathura HO from 05.04.1983 to 29.11.1984 with 10 days transit before joining as Junior Accountant in the office of the Respondent No.4 by allowing benefits of pay-protection on dated 30.11.1984 on merit under law.
(ii) And allow 2nd financial up-gradation under ACP Scheme on dated 10.05.2004, if otherwise admissible under prevailing service rules, after completion of 24 years of regular service and further MACP on 10.05.2010 on completion of 30 years of regular service rendered in the same Department of Posts on merit under law with GPF interest from the date of due to till the date of retirement and after that @ Rs.14% interest till the date of actual payment as being due salary part- payment held-up month-wise wilfully and intentionally by disregarding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 01.03.1995." Thereby, the crux of the matter pursued vide the present O.A. by the Applicant was seen to be regarding reckoning his past service with the Respondents properly, which as per the Applicant would require the benefits under the A.C.P./M.A.C.P. Scheme to be antedated and enhanced ; and thus, the Applicant had sought that the consequential monetary benefits thereof be granted to him with arrears as well as 14% interest till the date of those being actually paid to him.
6. From the Applicant's pleadings, certain issues connected to the relief of the benefits under the A.C.P./M.A.C.P. Scheme to be antedated and enhanced, as prayed for by him, were relevant to be taken note of. Firstly, the matter regarding the relative seniority of the Applicant and consequential financial benefit at par with his purported immediate junior had been agitated by him vide his O.A. No.263/2022 before this Tribunal and that came to be decided vide Order dated 24.01.2025, whereby his case was not found to be a fit case for interference on the grounds cited 6 O.A. No. 745/2024 and the said O.A. was dismissed. Secondly, as far as the issue related to his resignation dated 19.11.1984 being treated as technical resignation, the same had been allowed vide the Memo dated 17.10.2014 of the S.S.P.O.s, Mathura Postal Division which had stated that "the resignation dated 19.09.1984(sic) submitted/tendered by Shri Chhail Bihari Singh, the then Postal Assistant, UDC Mathura HO and now Sr. Accountant in Postal Directorate, New Delhi from his post, which was accepted under this office memo No.B-14/308/C.B.Singh dated 19.11.1984, is hereby ordered to be considered/treated as technical one." Also thirdly, in respect of the counting of past services of the Applicant rendered in office of S.S.P.O.s, Mathura Postal Division, it had been conveyed vide the copy of note-sheet page-4/NS that "the Competent Authority is pleased to order to count past service as Postal Assistant rendered in DoP, Mathura Division, U.P. Circle by Shri Chhail Bihari Singh, SA, w.e.f. 10.05.1980 to 19.11.1984 prior to joining of Jr. Accountant in Postal Accounts Office, Jaipur for the purpose of pensionary benefit only, under Rule-26(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972."
7. Further, specifically regarding proper counting his past service of Postal Assistant and U.D.C.(SBCO) rendered in Office of S.S.P.O.s Mathura Department of Posts towards ante-dating of A.C.P./M.A.C.P. Scheme benefits, it had been conveyed earlier vide Order No.6042 dated 20.10.2020 of the General Manager (Finance), PAO, Jaipur to the Applicant that -
"I am directed to refer your representation supra wherein, you requested for counting of past service of Postal Assistant and UDC (SBCO) rendered in O/o SSPO's Mathura for the purpose of ACP/MACP.7 O.A. No. 745/2024
In this connection, it is intimated that as per Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) O.M. No. 35034/1/97-Estt (D), Dated 09.08.1999 Para 3.2 "only regular service which counts for the purpose of regular promotion in terms of relevant Recruitment/Service Rules shall count of the purpose of upgradation under ACPS" and Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), dated 19.052009 Annexure-I Para 9 "Past continuous regular service in another Government Department in a post carrying same grade pay prior to regular appointment in a new Department, without a break, shall also be counted towards qualifying regular service for the purposes of MACPs".
Further, vide this office letter no. Admn/A/cs/C.B. Singh/12- 13/2560-2562 and Reminder I & II, dated 23.07.2015, 12.04.2017 & 03.08.2020 to SSPO's Mathura Dn. was asked that whether the technical resignation of Sh. Chhail Bihari Singh was accepted from the post of Postal Assistant or from U.D.C.?
With reference to this office letter SSPO's Mathura has communicated vide his office letter no. E-2/Chhail Bihari/20-21, dated 24.08.2020 that the technical resignation of Sh. Chhail Bihari Singh was accepted from the post of Postal Assistant as per records available in the office file with enclosed photo copy of charge report dated 19.11.1984, in this charge report you wrote that "The charge of the Postal Assistant was relinquished at Mathura H.O. A/N" and the application (photo copy) dated 21.01.1995 of Sh. Chhail Bihari Singh, himself is also mentioned in his application that "I was serving as a Postal Assistant and officiating UDC in SBCO at Mathura Postal Dn. before joining as a Jr. Accountant."
In the light of above ACP/MACP rules and observation, it is intimated that counting of past service rendered in the same Department cannot be considered for ACP/MACP purpose because Jr. Accountant and Postal Assistant scale/Grade are different i.e. the scale of Jr. Accountant was Rs. 330-560 and that of Postal 8 O.A. No. 745/2024 Assistant was Rs. 260-480. As such, your representation is not considerable and tenable.
Hence, any correspondence in this regard, will not be entertained by this office in the future."
Moreover, as already stated, this issue had been again examined by the C.P.M.G., Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur vide Order dated 21.12.2023 - in pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the O.A. No.905/2022 at New Delhi ; and had in effect sustained the aforesaid Order No.6042 dated 20.10.2020 by rejecting the appeal dated 15.10.2021 of the Applicant - which is under challenge herein, .
8. In the context of the prayer of the Applicant in the present O.A., the basic purpose for which the A.C.P. Scheme was introduced w.e.f. 09.08.1999, as well as the Modified A.C.P. Scheme was brought into effect from 01.09.2008, would be relevant to be noted. Statedly, the A.C.P. Scheme was intended to be a 'Safety Net' to deal with the problem of genuine stagnation and hardships faced by the employee due to lack of adequate promotion avenues. Accordingly, after careful consideration the relevant scheme was introduced by the Government, with the stipulation that residency period (regular service) for grant of benefit of assured career progression shall be counted from the grade in which an employee was appointed as a Direct Recruit. It was noted that in the present case, the Applicant had been appointed as direct recruit Junior Accountant with the Respondent No.4 on 30.11.1984 ; and therefore his service for financial upgradations as per A.C.P./M.A.C.P. Scheme would normally be reckonable from that date itself.
9O.A. No. 745/2024 The provisions of the Para-9 of MACP Scheme Annexure-1 would be an added consideration to deal with the specific situation where a Direct Recruit appointee had previously also worked in another Government Department, in the same pay grade - and would allow for counting of such service for the purpose of MACP as well. In the present case, the Applicant had previously served not in another Department, but in the same Department of Posts.
9. Also, the eligibility for grant of A.C.P./M.A.C.P. benefits had been decided upon in various cases by the Hon'ble Courts/Tribunals. Upon adverting to the authority of the Judgment and Order dated 12.07.2022 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.7438/2010 in the case of S P Parashar Vs. Union of India & Ors., specifically in respect of grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme, it had been held as follows :
" 16. The ACP Scheme for the Central Government employees in Ministries/Departments was introduced based upon recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission and, after introduction of the Scheme, a lot of discrepancies arose in respect of counting of past services. The Scheme was introduced vide notification dated 09.08.1999 and a reference was made in respect of various issues to the Government.
17. The Government of India, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions has issued a clarification in respect of the ACP Scheme on 10.02.2000, and the clarification issued under item Nos. 4,5 and 6 reads as under:
[Reference:-Office Memorandum No.35034/1/97-
Estt(D)(Vol.IV) dated 10.2.2000]
S.No. Point of doubt Clarification
xxx xxx Xxx
4. In a case where a The benefits under ACPS are
10
O.A. No. 745/2024
person is appointed limited to higher pay scale and do to a post on not confer designation, duties and transfer responsibilities of the higher post.
(absorption) basis Hence, the basic criterion to allow
from another post, the higher pay scale under ACPS
whether 12 years should be whether a person is
and 24 years of working in the same pay scale for
service for the the prescribed period of 12/24
purpose of ACPS years. Consequently, so long as a
will count from the person is in the same pay scale initial appointment during the period in question, it is or otherwise. immaterial whether he has been holding different posts in the same
5. Whether a pay scale. As such, if a Government Government servant has been servant, who is appointed to another post in the direct recruit in same pay scale either as a direct one grade and recruit or on absorption (transfer) subsequently basis or first on deputation basis joins another and later on absorbed (on transfer post again as basis), it should not make any direct recruit, is difference for the purpose of ACPS eligible for first so long as he is in the same pay financial scale. In other words, past upgradation promotion as well as past under ACPS after regular service in the same pay completion of 12 scale, even if it was on different years of service posts for which appointment was counted from the made by different methods like first appointment direct recruitment, absorption or from the (transfer)/ deputation, or at subsequent different places should be taken second into account for computing the appointment as prescribed period of service for direct recruit? the purpose of ACPS. Also, in case of absorption
6. An employee (transfer)/deputation in the appointed initially aforesaid situations, on deputation to a promotions earned in the post gets absorbed previous/present subsequently, organisations, together with whether absorption the past regular service shall may be termed as also count for the purpose of promotion or direct ACPS. However, if the recruitment. What appointment is made to higher will be the case if pay-scale either as on direct an employee on 11 O.A. No. 745/2024 deputation holds a recruitment or on absorption post in the same (transfer) basis or first on pay-scale as that of deputation basis and later on the post held by absorbed (on transfer basis), him in the present such appointment shall be cadre? Also, what treated as direct recruitment will be the situation and past service/promotion if he was holding a shall not count for benefits post in the parent under ACPS.
cadre carrying a Needless to say, in cases of lower pay-scale? transfer on administrative ground, involving only change of station within the same department, the service rendered in the same grade at two stations may count for ACPS, as such transfers are within the same organisation, ordered generally for administrative/personal considerations and the service rendered in the earlier station counts as eligibility service for promotion.
xxx xxx Xxx
18. The aforesaid clarification issued by the Government of India in respect of Scheme dated 09.08.1999 makes it very clear that in case of absorption, transfer/ deputation, promotion earned in the previous/ present organization together with past service shall also count for the purposes of ACP Scheme. It also clarifies that, in case, the appointment is made to higher pay scale, either on direct recruitment or on absorption (transfer) basis or first on deputation basis and later on absorbed (on transfer basis), such appointment shall be treated as direct recruitment and past service/ promotion shall not be counted for the benefits under ACP Scheme."
(Emphasis provided) Thereby, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had upheld the Clarification dated 10.02.2000 to the A.C.P. Scheme in respect of past services. In the context of the present case, it would imply that past promotion as well as past regular service in the same pay scale, even if it was on different posts for which appointment 12 O.A. No. 745/2024 was made by direct recruitment, or at different places should be taken into account for computing the prescribed period of service for the purpose of ACPS. However, if the appointment was made to higher pay-scale on direct recruitment, past service/promotion shall not count for benefits under ACPS.
10. Therefore, in the case of the Applicant in the present O.A. No.745/2024, appropriate ratio as per facts of the case had to be applied by the Respondents, towards according him financial up- gradations under the A.C.P./M.A.C.P. Scheme. The crux to be determined was that upon Applicant's appointment on 30.11.1984 as Junior Accountant in the pay scale of Rs.(330-560)/- on direct recruitment - whether the Applicant was to be deemed to have joined from his previous post of P.A. in the pay scale of Rs.(260-
480)/- whereby the extant A.C.P. Scheme guidelines/clarifications would require the appointment as Junior Accountant from 30.11.1984 to be treated as that made to higher pay-scale on direct recruitment and his past service/promotion shall not count for benefits under ACP Scheme ; or, whether the Applicant was to be deemed to have joined from his previous post of U.D.C. (SBCO) in the pay scale of Rs.(330-560)/-, whereby the extant A.C.P. Scheme guidelines/clarifications would require it to be treated as an appointment made to same pay-scale on direct recruitment and his past service/promotion as U.D.C. from 05.04.1983 shall count for benefits under A.C.P. Scheme. It is relevant to note in this regard that although the Applicant had also referred to counting of his regular service length as Postal Assistant rendered in DoP, Mathura Division, U.P. Circle, w.e.f. 10.05.1980 to 19.11.1984 prior to joining as Jr. Accountant in Postal Accounts Office, Jaipur - the same had been allowed for 13 O.A. No. 745/2024 the purpose of pensionary benefit only, under Rule-26(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Moreover, it is also noted that the Applicant had also referred to the subsequent merger of the posts of Postal Assistant, U.D.C. and Junior Accountant in the same pay scale in consequence of the acceptance of the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission (C.P.C.) - and hence argued that it should be deemed that his service starting from 10.05.1980 as P.A. had to be ab initio counted to be rendered in the same pay scale as that of U.D.C./Junior Accountant. We found the same to be fallacious as the said recommendations of the merger of the aforesaid posts in the same pay scale was notified to be effective prospectively from 01.01.1996 and not before. Hence, the service of the Applicant as P.A. from 10.05.1980 to 05.04.1983 previously rendered in the pay scale of Rs.(260-480)/- as admissible then, was clearly in a lower pay scale than that of Rs.(330-560)/-, as admissible then for the posts of U.D.C. and Junior Accountant.
11. From the available facts on record, it is found that it is not disputed between the Applicant and the Respondents as per the impugned Order dated 21.12.2023 - that the Applicant who had joined as Postal Assistant on 10.05.1980 in Mathura Division of Uttar Pradesh Circle had been promoted as U.D.C. (SBCO) through Departmental Examination-1982 conducted by DGP&T, New Delhi ; that he was appointed as such by S.S.P.O.s, Mathura Division and had joined on 05.04.1983 ; that his selection had been made subject to the final outcome of the W.P.(Civil) No.3399-3402/1982 Balram Aggrawal & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India ; and that eventually, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had vide Order dated 14 O.A. No. 745/2024 01.03.1995 dismissed the pending writ petitions No.3399- 3402/1982 as having become infructuous.
However further, the case of the Applicant was that thereafter, his appointment as U.D.C.(SBCO) ought to be held as regular w.e.f. 05.04.1983 and consequentially, his relieving on 19.11.1984 for joining as Junior Accountant should be deemed to be from the said post of U.D.C.(SBCO) - with determination of his pay and A.C.P./M.A.C.P. benefits accordingly. The Respondents had not acceded to this inter alia in the absence of the copy of the writ petition filed vide SLP No.3399-3402/1982 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which had been attempted to be located amongst various offices of the Respondent Department.
12. In light of the examination foregoing, it was firstly noted that the decision on promotions, acceptance of technical resignation, sanction or otherwise of A.C.P./M.A.C.P. Scheme benefits etc. as per the extant guidelines are matters in the executive domain. It is also the settled position of law that Courts/Tribunals are not to step into the domain of the executive, to substitute their own wisdom for that of the executive - since they are not equipped with or custodian of facts and circumstances of the related cases, and such decision making by Courts and Tribunals would be fraught with the risk of creating a logjam in the administration. At the same time, the Courts/Tribunals can examine the actions of the executive on the grounds of natural justice, procedural correctness or avoidance of patent arbitrariness etc.
13. Further, we find that the post from which the technical resignation of the Applicant on 19.11.1984 had been accepted remained undecided by the Respondents, despite the eventual 15 O.A. No. 745/2024 dismissal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 01.03.1995 of the pending writ petitions No.3399-3402/1982. It was also found that there was no record or contention - either, that the said promotions to the post of U.D.C. (SBCO), inter alia that effected for the Applicant on dated 05.04.1983 although subject to the outcome of the then pending litigation in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, had ever been stayed or quashed ; or that the Applicant had not worked in the post of U.D.C. between 05.04.1983 up till the date of his technical resignation on 19.11.1984. In such circumstances, the determination of the post of the Applicant on the specific date of his technical resignation, to be Postal Assistant, i.e. a post on which he had worked previously and not the post on which he was working on the specific date of his technical resignation was patently arbitrary.
14. We also found that the different formations within the Respondent organization, inter alia the Department of Posts, Chief Post Master Generals of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh Circles, Post Master General of Agra/Mathura Division etc. had been exchanging correspondences to locate the writ petitions No.3398- 3402/1982, despite being official Respondents to the same and citing the pendency of the same in their Order for promotion of Applicant as U.D.C.(SBCO). Eventually, the impugned Order dated 21.12.2023 of the Respondent No.2 had also been issued by referring to the designations as in documents of November, 1983 i.e. of a time when the matter regarding promotion/posting as U.D.C.(SBCO) of the Applicant was disputed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We observe that the writ petitions No.3398- 3402/1982 had been dismissed as infructuous way back on 01.03.1995 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, hence the pretext of 16 O.A. No. 745/2024 non-availability of a copy of the said writ petitions' among the various offices of the Department of Posts cannot be allowed, as all these offices are part of the same Respondent Department. Further, the interpretation that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not provided any relief to any party was found to be arbitrary in that the rejection of writ petition of the petitioners is clearly tantamount to closure of the challenge to the decision/action of the Respondents - that of making certain promotions to the post of U.D.C. (SBCO). The outcome of the then pending litigation in the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the same had not been decided in favour of the writ petitioners ; also clearly implied that the said promotions stood unencumbered and granted finally.
15. In the conspectus of the foregoing and for the specific consequential issue of grant or otherwise of benefits of A.C.P./M.A.C.P. Scheme to the Applicant, we quash the impugned Order dated 21.12.2023 to the extent it deemed the post of the Applicant on 19.11.1984 i.e. the date of his accepting of his technical resignation as Postal Assistant (P.A.), without accounting for the decision dated 01.03.1995 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We direct the Respondent No.2 to specifically determine with due justification the post of the Applicant at the stage of accepting his technical resignation on 19.11.1984 for joining as Junior Accountant, consequent to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 01.03.1995 ; i.e. whether he was to be treated as having resigned from the post of U.D.C.(SBCO) or from the post of Postal Assistant.
16. Further, it is also directed that based on the determination of the post of the Applicant at the stage of acceptance of his 17 O.A. No. 745/2024 technical resignation on 19.11.1984 for joining as Junior Accountant - if necessitated, the consequential exercise for re- determining the admissible benefits of financial upgradation under the A.C.P./M.A.C.P. Scheme guidelines/clarifications extant shall also be done by the Respondents ; and accordingly his pay, pension, retiral benefits etc. be redetermined. In either of the outcomes, if those are found to be consequentially admissible at rates and from dates other than the rates and dates from which the same had been allowed to him previously ; or if those are found to be consequentially inadmissible so, the Respondent No.2 shall pass a speaking Order with full justification, for the specific purpose of determination of A.C.P./M.A.C.P. benefits of Applicant.
17. We also direct that arrears of pay and allowances - if and to the extent admissible, in consequence of the same - be also worked out by the Respondents and be paid to the Applicant duly. We also direct further that the aforesaid exercises be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. In case of delay beyond the said period of twelve weeks, the Respondents shall be liable to pay interest at G.P.F. rate to the Applicant on the unpaid amount, if any, out of the admissible amount determined.
18. Therefore, the present Original Application is disposed of accordingly with directions herein above. No order as to costs.
(Lok Ranjan) (Ranjana Shahi) Member (A) Member (J) ! ysm