Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Satya Prakash Khare vs D/O Post on 20 October, 2022
1
OA No. 4473/2022
Item No.8
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 4473/2018
This the 20th day of October, 2022
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
1. Sh. Satya Prakash Khare
(Aged about 64 years), Group „C‟
(Retired Sorting Assistant from RMS „X‟ Division,
Jhansi /Department of Posts)
S/o Late Sh. Moti Lal Khare
R/0 - C/o Sh. Manish Khare, Flat No. Smq. 15/2,
Yayusenabad, M.B. Road, Air Force Station,
Tugalakalbad, New Delhi-1 10062
2. Sh. Vishan Lal Sahu,
(Aged about 63 years), Group „C‟
(Retired Sorting Assistant from
RMS 'X' Division, Jhansi /Department of Posts).
S/o Late Sh. Basore Lal Sahu
R/o H. No.AA-7, Gali No.4,
Anand Parvat Industrial Area,
New Delhi-110005.
3. Dinesh Kumar Bansal,
(Aged about 65 years approx), Group „C‟
(Retired Sorting Assistant from
RMS „X‟ Division, Jhansi /Department of Posts).
S/o Late Sh. J.P. Bansal
R/0-C/o Sh. P.C. Sharma, H. No.61,
Jindal Colony, Kapasera,
Samalka Extension,
New Delhi-1100037
.. Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. A.K. Bhakt)
Versus
2
OA No. 4473/2022
Item No.8
Union of India & Others through :
1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Communication & Technology,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhawan, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-1 10001.
2. Director General,
Department of Posts,
Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001.
3. Director, Postal Services,
O/o Post Master General,
Agra Region, Agra, U.P.
PIN-282001.
4. The Superintendent, R.M.S.
'X' Division, Jhansi-284001.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Manish Kumar)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J) The applicants were initially appointed as Sorter/Clerk on 16.10.1979. Thereafter, they were promoted as Sorting Assistant on 19.10.1995. After completion of 26 years of regular service, they were considered for promotion under BCR Scheme in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 on 16.10.2005. The applicants retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. They contend that on completion of 30 years of regular service as Sorting Assistant, they are entitled for 3rd financial upgradation under 3 OA No. 4473/2022 Item No.8 MACP Scheme. The representations made by the applicants in this regard were rejected by the respondents by passing non- speaking orders dated 31.05.2018 and 10.10.2018. Accordingly, the applicants made further representations relying on the judgment dated 04.02.2015 in Union of India & Ors. Vs. D. Sivakumar & Anr. in Writ Petition No.30629 of 2014 and M.P. No. 1 of 2014 passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court, but to no avail. Hence, they filed the present O.A. seeking the following relief(s):
"(I) To quash and set aside the impugned Orders dated 31.05.2018; 10.10.2018 and 10.10.2018 [Annexure A/1 (Colly))] and direct the respondents to grant 3rd Financial Up-gradation under MACP Scheme to the applicants from the date of their entitlement [16.10.2009] extending the benefits of Judgment dated 04.02.2015 „Union of India Vs. D. Sivakumar' in Writ Petition No.30629 of 2014 and M.P. No. 1 of 2014 passed by Hon'ble Madras High Court, other Judgment dated 30.05.2018 in OA No.170/00481/2017/ CAT Bangalore Bench 'K. Prakash Shettigar Vs. Union of India & Ors', Judgment dated 15.07.2016 in OA No.203/00716/2016 'Kaushal Prasad Verma vs. U.O.I. & Ors.' passed by Ld. CAT, Jabalpur Bench Circuit Court Sitting: Bilaspur. (II) Direct the respondents to fix pay of the applicant properly considering 3rd up-gradation under MACP Scheme and release arrears of pay and retiral benefits and pensionary benefits. (III) To direct the respondents to produce the entire relevant records of this case for proper adjudication.
(IV) To award exemplary heavy cost on the respondents for causing undue harassment.4 OA No. 4473/2022
Item No.8 (V) To pass any other order or orders which this Hon‟ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. Notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit.
3. In the counter affidavit, it is submitted by the respondents that the applicants retired from service on 31.03.2014, 31.05.2016 and 31.07.2014, respectively. After retirement, they filed representations claiming the 3rd financial upgradation under MACP Scheme from the date of completion of 30 years service as Sorting Assistant. The said representations were considered and decided by the respondents vide letters dated 31.05.2018 and 10.10.2018, respectively.
4. It is further submitted that the applicants No.1 and 2 were appointed as temporary Mail Man on 31.12.1974 at Jhansi and applicant No.3 on 01.06.1975 at Agra and, thereafter, they were given quasi permanent status w.e.f. 31.12.1977, 30.12.1977 and 01.03.1977, respectively. While in service as Group D, the applicants appeared in LGO examination and after declared successful in the exam, they were appointed as temporary leave reserve Sorter on 16.10.1979. After completion of 16 years service in Group „C‟, they were given One Time Bound Promotion (OTBP) in the pay scale of Rs.1400-1800 and after completion of 26 years 5 OA No. 4473/2022 Item No.8 of service, another Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) promotion in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 from 01.01.2006 vide letter dated 22.08.2006. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the applicants have already got three promotion/financial upgradations, they are not entitled for 3rd financial upgradation after introduction of MACP Scheme on 01.09.2018, which they are claiming after their retirement. The respondents have also relied upon the judgment dated 26.07.2013 of the Hon‟ble High Court in Uttam Singh & Ors. vs. MCD & Ors. in WP(C) No. 2512 of 2012.
5. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhakt, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents; and perused the pleadings on record.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention towards judgment dated 04.02.2015 in Writ Petition No.30629 of 2014 in D. Sivakumar (supra), wherein the following observations have been made:
"9. What the Department had done is to adjust the appointment of the first respondent as the Postal Assistant on 12.11.1977, as the first financial upgradation under Modified Assured Career Progression-I. This is clearly erroneous in view of the fact that the appointment as Postal Assistant was not granted to the first respondent after mere completion of 10 years in the Cadre of Postman. From the Cadre of Postman, to which, the first respondent got appointed on 22.9.1973, he participated in a selection to the post of Postal Assistant and 6 OA No. 4473/2022 Item No.8 got appointed. Therefore, to adjust the said appointment against Modified Assured Career Progression-II, is clearly erroneous. Once that error is removed, it will be clear that the first respondent would be entitled to three modified assured career progressions for every ten years. Hence, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in directing the Department not to take into account the appointment granted to the post of Postal Assistant and to adjust it against Modified Assured Career Progression-I.
10. Moreover, it is to be pointed out that even the second modified assured career progression was granted under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme only after 16 years and the third is said to have been granted after 26 years. If the first appointment is adjusted against Modified Assured Career Progression-I, this could not have actually happened. For doing so, the Department has counted the first appointment as 12.11.1977. Therefore, they cannot do so for the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme in a different manner."
7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants would be satisfied, if the respondents are directed to consider their representations once again and to pass a reasoned and speaking order thereon, in a time bound manner.
8. From the perusal of the impugned orders, it is revealed that the respondents have not passed any speaking order on the representations made by the applicants.
9. In the circumstances, we hereby remand back this matter to the Competent Authority with a direction to consider the claim of the applicants for grant of 3rd financial upgradation under MACP Scheme, in the light of the above referred judgment in D. Sivakumar (supra) and to pass reasoned and speaking orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case not later 7 OA No. 4473/2022 Item No.8 than 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The applicants are at liberty to take further course of action, in accordance with law, if they are not satisfied with the orders passed by the respondents or if their grievance still subsists.
10. With the above directions, the O.A. stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (Ashish Kalia)
Member (A) Member (J)
/jyoti/