Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Nirazuddin vs Chief Post Master General Up Circle on 3 May, 2025
Reserved on 16.04.2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Allahabad Bench,
Allahabad
th
This the 03 day of May , 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 1121 of 2014
Nirazuddin son of Mohd. Khalil, Resident of Village-Mannapur, Post
Office-Ram Nagar, District-Chandauli (Old District-Varanasi).
........... APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri Saroj Kumar Pandey
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary Department of Postal India, New
Delhi.
2. The Chief Post Master General U.P. Circle, Lucknow.
3. The Post Master General Allahabad for Information.
4. Senior Superintendent of Post offices, East-Division, Varanasi.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Vidyapati Tripathi
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A) Shri Saroj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vidyapati Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents, are present and heard.
2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:
1ASHISH KUMAR "i) To issue a order or direction directing the opposite party no. 2 to 4 to consider the claim of the seniority of the applicant on the post of Motor Mail Service Mechanic, Varanasi Since 2-2-1995.
(ii) To issue a direction to opposite party no. 4 to pay the arrears of the grade pay and other benefits of M.M.S. Mechanic to the applicant treating his as regular and permanent employee of the M.M.S. (Mechanic).
(iii) To issue any other, direction which this Tribunal may deem fit.
(iv) To award cost to the claim of the applicant.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially selected for the post of Mail Motor Cleaner (MMC) in the Varanasi Unit by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, East Division, Varanasi, through an appointment letter dated 7.6.1989. He was placed on two years' probation starting 9.5.1991, against a vacancy created by the promotion of Sri Baij Nath Gautam. Upon the retirement of Sri Chedi Lal, the applicant submitted a representation dated 1.11.1993 requesting promotion to the post of MMS Mechanic. He was subsequently promoted on an ad-hoc basis to this post on 2.2.1995 and has been continuously serving in that capacity since then, though without regularization or related benefits. Despite multiple representations and a recommendation by Respondent No. 4 for his regular appointment, no action was taken for years. As a result, the applicant filed O.A. No. 1015 of 2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of by directing the respondents on 2.1.2014 to issue a speaking and reasoned order. Following this, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 9.5.2014 recommended his regular promotion, which was approved and formalized via order dated 19.6.2014, later corrected on 23.6.2014, with the applicant resuming charge as a regular MMS Mechanic. Hence, the instant O.A. has been filed by the applicant for direction to the respondents for considering the seniority of the applicant for the post of Motor Mail Service varanasi since 02.02.1995 and to pay the arrears of grade pay pending since 02.02.1995.
4. Per contra, respondents have filed their Counter Affidavit refuting the facts disclosed in the OA and submitted that the applicant was regularized on the post on 09.05.2014. It is further submitted in the counter that the 2 ASHISH KUMAR Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P © no. 8615/2004 and No. 9282/2004 has expressed his view that going by the nature of appointment and fact that they were appointed by way of stopgap arrangement on provisional basis no right would accrue in favour of petitioners to continue or to seek regularization. It is further averred that order dated 01.02.1995 by which the applicant was promoted on adhoc basis as MMS Mechanic, it was clearly explained to him that his appointment as MMS Mechanic is purely temporary and on adhoc basis and does not confer on him any right for his regularization. It is further submitted that applicant is not entitled for his regularization on the post from back date. Hence, prayer was made to dismiss the O.A.
5. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicants refuting the facts disclosed in the counter and submitted that although he was regularly promoted to the post of MMS Mechanic vide Memo dated 19.6.2014 following the DPC held on 9.5.2014, this promotion does not fully comply with the Hon'ble Tribunal's order dated 2.1.2014. The key issue remains unaddressed--whether his long-standing service on the post since 2.2.1995 on an ad-hoc basis was properly considered for seniority and consequential benefits. Despite working continuously for over 19 years, his seniority from 2.2.1995 has not been recognized, and no mention of this legitimate claim was made in the promotion order. The applicant reiterates that he was granted increments and allowances while serving on the post but was denied timely regularization and due promotion. This delay, caused by the respondents' inaction, has adversely affected his career progression. Hence, prayer was made to allow the O.A.
6. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the entire records filed on behalf of the parties.
7. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that despite working continuously on the post of MMS Mechanic since 2.2.1995, the claim of the applicant for regular appointment was unjustly delayed due to the respondents' inaction and deliberate avoidance, even though a recommendation for regularization was made as early as 2005. The promotion eventually granted on 9.5.2014, following the Tribunal's order dated 2.1.2014 in O.A. No. 1015 of 2011, failed to consider his 3 ASHISH KUMAR long-standing service and denied him seniority and arrears of pay from 1995. The delay and denial of rightful benefits amount to arbitrary and discriminatory action by the respondents, infringing the applicant's legal and service rights. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P Rammohan Rao vs. K Srinivas and Ors. and service of the applicant regularized on 09.05.2014, which was not challenged before any forum and has attained finality and argued that when temporary appointments are made under valid governmental orders and the appointees serve continuously until regularization, their pre-regularization service should be recognized for determining seniority.
8. Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the applicant was regularized on the post of MMS Mechanic on 09.05.2014 and that his earlier appointment was purely on an ad-hoc and temporary basis, made as a stopgap arrangement without conferring any right to regularization from a back date. They cited the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment in W.P. (C) Nos. 8615/2004 and 9282/2004, which held that provisional appointments do not entitle incumbents to claim regularization. Therefore, the respondents argued that the applicant is not entitled to retrospective regularization and prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the documents available.
10. Observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of P Rammohan Rao vs. KSrinivas and Ors, 2025 SC 225, is neither relevant to this case nor does it help the applicant.
11. Considering the submissions raised by the applicant, it will be useful to reproduce the appointment letter dated 01.02.1995 issued to the applicant:-
4ASHISH KUMAR DEPARTMENT OF POSTS.
OFFICE OF THE SR. SUPDT. OF POST OFFICE EAST DN.
VARANASI.
Memo. No. B-2/116/Ch.III, dated at Varanasi -1, the 1.2.1995. Sri Nirajuddin Cleaner MMS, Varanasi is hereby ordered to be promoted on adhoc as MMS Mechanic in the scale of 950-1500 vice vacant post caused by invalid retirement of Sri Chhedi Lal with immediate effect.
Shri Nirajuddin should clearly under stand that his appointment as MMS, Mechanic is purely temporary and on adhoc basis and does not confers on him any right for his regular absorption in the said cadre.
Charge report should be submitted to all concerned.
Sd/- Illegible
2.2.1995
Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices,
East Dn. Varanasi.
Second paragraph of the aforementioned appointment letter clearly
shows that appointment of the applicant as MMS, Mechanic is purely temporary and on adhoc basis and does not confers on him any right for his regular absorption in the said cadre. The applicant has joined his service and worked on the strength of this letter, which means he has accepted the terms mentioned in the above letter.
12. In the O.A. no. 1015/2011, filed by the applicant following relief were claimed:-
(i) To issue a order or direction directing the opposite party no. 2 to 4 to consider the claim of the regularization of the applicant on the post of Motor Mail Service Mechanic. Varanasi.
(ii) to issue a direction to opposite party No.4 to pay the salary and other benefits of M.M.S. mechanic to the applicant treating him as permanent employee as regular employee of the same posts are getting from the said department and not to discriminate him in paying the samé.5
ASHISH KUMAR
(iii) To issue any other, direction which this Tribunal may deem fit.
(iv) To award cost to the claim of the applicant.
This O.A. was disposed of on 02.01.2014 with the following directions to the respondents:
Hence, we direct the respondent No.3 (The Post Master General, Allahabad) with whom the proposal is stated to be pending as per the affidavit filed by the respondents, to convene the DPC expeditiously and pass a speaking and reasoned order under intimation to applicant within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
The above order is silent on the back dated regularization of the applicant. Rather, the applicant has not claimed regularization for any specific date in the said O.A.
13. While deciding the case of Gopi Chand Sedha vs The State of Haryana & Others on 22.01.2010, Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that adhoc service is to be included in the period of service for giving the higher scale of pay is unsustainable and has to be vacated.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the case of Ashok Kumar srivastava and others vs. Ram Lal and others held that till such time an employee is born on the cadre he cannot have any claim to seniority over others who are already regular in the cadre.
15. While considering the case of Keshav Chandra Joshi and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors. AIR 1991, SC 284, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that adhoc or fortuitous appointments on a temporary stop-gap basis cannot be taken into account for the purpose of seniority. It has further observed that even if the appointee in such cases was subsequently qualified to hold the post on a regular basis and that to give benefits of such service would be contrary to equality enshrined in Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution as unequals would be treated as equals. Hence, adhoc service rendered by an employee is not be included for the purpose of calculating the seniority.
6
ASHISH KUMAR
16. Judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rashi Mani Mishra vs The State of U.P. Rural Engineering on 28.07.2021, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that counting the services as adhoc basis is hereby quashed and seniority based thereon is hereby set aside.
17. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the pleadings of the parties, and comparing the same with the observations as discussed in para 12 to 16 above, it is evident that O.A. lacks merit. Adhoc appointment or stopgap appointment will not confer him any right for claiming regularisation. Hence, the O.A. is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly O.A. is dismissed.
19. All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
(Ashish)
7
ASHISH KUMAR