Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER(A):-

1. This OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:-
(a) Declare the action of the respondents in withdrawing the benefit of BCR and making recovery of Rs. 47,000/- (Approx.) from the applicant and letter dated 09.09.2011, Annexure A-1, whereby he has been conveyed adverse remarks Average in the Annual Confidential Reports for the year 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007.
(b) Direct the respondents to grant the benefit of BCR w.e.f. 16.07.2008 and consequently revise the pensionary benefits of the applicant and arrears be released to him alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.
(c) Refund the amount of Rs. 47,000/- (Approx.) recovered from the applicant while withdrawing the benefit of BCR alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.

2. It has been stated in the OA that the applicant was initially appointed as Postman on 22.03.1974 and was thereafter promoted on 16.7.1982 in Group C as Postal Assistant after passing Departmental Examination. Thereafter, in the year 1998, he was granted the benefit of Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) on completion of 16 years of service on 21.07.1998. The applicant completed 26 years of service on 16.07.2008 and was entitled to the benefit of BCR w.e.f. 16.06.2008 but, vide order dated 2.4.2009 (Annexure A-3), the applicant was granted the benefit of Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 w.e.f. 1.1.2009 on completion of 26 years of service instead of 16.06.2008 and the due arrears were also released to the applicant w.e.f. 1.1.2009. The Government of India vide notification dated 9.8.1999 introduced Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) in respect of Group C and D employees and as per the Scheme, an employee became entitled for first ACP on completion of 16 years of regular service and second ACP on completion of 26 years of regular service. The said Scheme was modified in the year 2009 and the Government of India introduced modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) under which the benefit of three upgradations are to be granted to the employees on completion of 10/20/30 years of regular service. The said Scheme has been introduced vide notification dated 19.5.2009 (Annexure A-4) and the same has been made applicable w.e.f. 1.9.2008.

(ii) That even otherwise, the benefit of BCR was granted to the applicant under BCR Scheme on completion of 26 years of regular service. The applicant completed 26 years of regular service as on 16.7.2008 and the MACP Scheme came into existence vide notification dated 19.5.2009, therefore, the said Scheme cannot be made applicable retrospectively and therefore, the action of the respondents in withdrawing the benefit of BCR granted to the applicant is totally illegal and arbitrary and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that an identical claim as made by the applicant in the present OA had been adjudicated while deciding OA No. 1443/PB/12 on 30.10.2013 and that OA was rejected. He stated that being a covered case, the present OA be disposed of in the like manner.

8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. It is evident from the material on record that the ACRs of the applicant were Average for the period from 2004-2007 and these ACRs were material to the claim of the applicant for being granted BCR w.e.f. 16.7.2008. The learned counsel for the applicant has not brought the guidelines under the BCR Scheme while claiming that the grading in the ACR is immaterial for grant of financial consideration under the BCR Scheme. Besides, it is seen that the applicant has been allowed the third MACP w.e.f. 1.9.2008 and since it is found that over-payment had been made to the applicant due to BCR having been released to him w.e.f. 1.1.2009 although the BCR Scheme stood withdrawn as on that date, the applicant cannot resist the recovery of over payment. After the grant of third MACP, the re-fixation of the pay in respect of the applicant had been effected and his retiral benefits had also been computed and released to him. We also observe that the claim in the present OA is similar to that in OA No. 1443/PB/2012 and hence, the present OA is rejected as there being no merit in the claim. No costs.