IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Nath Tilhari, Nyapathy Vijay, JJ.
The Superintendent of Railway Mail Service Vijayawada and others - Petitioners
Versus
Sri A.Mrutyumjaya Rao - Respondent
Writ Petition No.19718 OF 2012
Decided On : 20-09-2024
Pension - Writ Petition - Article 226 - Sections 1, 2, 3 - The court interpreted the eligibility criteria for promotion and pension benefits, emphasizing that mere officiating in a higher post does not confer entitlement to the benefits associated with that post unless the requisite conditions for promotion are met.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Sorting Assistant, challenged the denial of pension and retirement benefits based on his officiating period in a higher post (HSG-I) without formal promotion, arguing for entitlement to benefits based on the pay drawn during that period.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was not eligible for promotion to HSG-I as he did not fulfill the necessary conditions for promotion to HSG-II, and thus, his officiating period could not be used to calculate pensionary benefits.
Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to pension and retirement benefits based on his officiating period in HSG-I despite not being formally promoted to that post.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that officiating in a higher post does not automatically confer entitlement to the benefits of that post unless the individual meets the eligibility criteria for promotion.
Result: The court set aside the Tribunal's order, allowing only for the difference in salary for the period of officiation without pensionary benefits.
ORDER :
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Heard Sri Sridhar Tummalapudi, learned Central Government Counsel, for the petitioners and Sri P.Venkata Rama Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the Union of India and others, challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad(in short ‘the Tribunal’), dated 21.09.2011 in O.A.No.100 of 2006 filed by the respondent herein.
3. The Tribunal ordered that the respondent shall be permitted to draw the pay scale of HSG-1 i.e. Rs.6500-200- Rs.10,500 from 1st October, 2004 to 31st May, 2005 and he shall also be entitled to all the consequential payments and arrears of pay and allowances and all the retiral benefits, accordingly. The Tribunal provided that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.
4. The respondent, Sri A.Mrutyumjaya Rao, was recruited as Sorting Assistant with effect from 18.08.1964. While working as Sorting Assistant in R.M.S. ‘Y’ Division, he was given 1st Financial Upgradation under Time Bound One Promotion Scheme (TBOP), after completion of 16 years of service w.e.f. 30.11.1983 vide Memo No.B-1/48-1, dated 15.08.1984. He was given the 2nd financial upgradation under BCR Scheme after completion of 26 years of service w.e.f. 01.10.1991 vide Memo No.B-1/4-1/BCR, dated 13.03.1992. Thereafter, the respondent was promoted to the cadre of Lower Selection Grade(‘L.S.G’, in short) w.e.f. 01.07.2001 vide order dated 24.10.2003, in pursuance of the instructions of the Director General (Posts), New Delhi vide letter No.4-16/2002- SPB.II, dated 12.11.2002 and Chief Postmaster General, Andhra Pradesh Circle, Hyderabad, letter No.ST/10-1/1997, dated 08.09.2003 conveyed through the Postmaster General, Vijayawada, vide letter No.ST-1/FTP/RMS dated 12.09.2003. While working as Norm Based LSG SA HRO RMS ‘Y’ Division, Vijayawada, the respondent was ordered, vide letter of the Senior Superintendent, RMS ‘Y’ Division, Vijayawada, dated 29.09.2004, to work as Higher Selection Grade-I(HSG-I), Head Record Officer, RMS ‘Y’ Division, Vijayawada in the leave vacancy of Sri B.K.Partha Sarathi, the regular incumbent, HSG-I Head Record Officer, RMS ‘Y’ Division, Vijayawada w.e.f. 04.10.2004. The respondent officiated as HSG-1 Head Record Officer during the period from 04.10.2004 to 03.12.2004. He also officiated in the same post during the period from 06.12.2004 to 31.05.2005 as the regular incumbent of the said post retired from service voluntarily. The respondent finally retired from service on 31.05.2005 on superannuation, while officiating as Head Record Officer (HSGI). The pensionary benefits of the respondent were calculated, fixed, drawn and paid without taking into account the pay drawn by the official in HSG-1 scale during the period from 01.10.2004 to 31.05.2005 as he was not promoted to HSG-1 cadre on regular basis and did not fulfill the prescribed eligibility condition for promotion to the cadre of HSG-1.
5. During the course of inspection of the office of the Superintendent, RMS ‘Y’ Division, Vijayawada by the Internal Check Party(ICP), in March, 2006, an objection with respect to payment of allowances during the respondent’s officiated period, in excess of Rs.4,243/- and for recovery was placed. The letters dated 28.03.2006 and 09.08.2006 were issued to the respondent for recovery from his pension in four monthly instalments.
6. The respondent filed O.A. for the following reliefs:
a) No.ST/RMS/HSG-1/04 dated 27.07.2005 (Annexure - A.XVI) of R-3 denying him pension and other retiral benefits based on the pay actually drawn and paid to him during the 10 months prior to his superannuation on 31.05.2005;
b)No.1056/Pen.No.III/C.No.477/04-05/PPONo.16987/ LPR dt. 25.05.2005 (Annexure-A.XI) of R-5:
c)No.1053
Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma
Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar v. Union of India
Officiating in a higher post does not grant entitlement to associated benefits unless the individual meets the promotion criteria.
An employee discharging duties of a higher post is entitled to pay and allowances for that position, regardless of the absence of formal promotion orders. Delay in processing claims does not nullify ....
The court established that administrative delays should not penalize employees eligible for promotion based on effective orders, reinforcing the principle of timely implementation of government direc....
(1) Promotion – Promotion only becomes effective upon assumption of duties on promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of vacancy or the date of recommendation – Right to be considered for ....
Employees are not entitled to back wages for notional promotions without actual performance of duties on respective posts.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.