IMPORTANT POINT
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 directives.

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Smt. P. Vijaya Kumari, learned counsel for the Central Government, appearing for the petitioners.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the Chief Postmaster General, A.P.Circle, Hyderabad and others, including the Union of India, challenging the judgment and order dated 06.04.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, at Hyderabad (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.No.785 of 2002.

3. The 1st respondent herein B. Krishna Murthy is the applicant in O.A.

4. The O.A was preferred to declare that the applicant be deemed to have been promoted to Higher Selection Grade-I (in short ‘HSG-I’) in pursuance of upgradation of HSG-II posts to HSG-I from 30.06.2001, as per letter No.22- 1/99/PE.I (Vol.II) dated 30.03.2021, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, New Delhi with all consequential benefits, such as, payment of arrears of pay in HSG-I from 01.07.2001 to 30.11.2001 and also revision of pension, gratuity, commutation and other attendant benefits by holding the action of the respondents in O.A, the present petitioners 1 to 3 and the present respondent No.4 (respondent No.4 in O.A.) in not promoting the applicant to HSG-I in terms of letter dated 30.06.2001 as illegal and arbitrary.

5. The applicant was appointed as Postal Assistant on 23.03.1962 and worked in various capacities like Sub-Postmaster, Office Assistant, Assistant Postmaster etc., and finally retired on 30.11.2001 after serving nearly 40 years. The applicant while in service was given Lower Selection Grade (in short ‘LSG’) promotion on passing 1/3rd LSG examination and Biennial Cadre Review (in short ‘BCR’) cadre promotion during 1991 on completion of 26 years of service and since then he worked in the said cadre till his retirement on 30.11.2001 on attaining the age of superannuation. The Department of Posts accorded sanction vide Order No.22-1/89-PE.I (Vol.II) dated 30.03.2001 for creation of 1622 posts in the HSG Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- by suitably upgrading the same number of existing HSG-II posts in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- with immediate effect by simultaneously abolishing 690 existing live posts of PAs/SAs in the scale of Rs.4000-6000/- proportionally and directed the Heads of Circles to identify the number of HSG-II posts as indicated against their Circle and upgrade them to HSG-I as per the guidelines. So far as A.P.Circle was concerned, 143 posts were to be upgraded by abolishing 61 posts in order to find out matching savings.

6. The case of the applicant was that there was a specific direction by the Government of India, Department of Posts, in the Order dated 30.03.2001, directing the work of identification of posts, holding of DPC and placement of officials against the posts to be completed as early as possible. It was also directed that the concerned Internal Financial Adviser should ensure proper implementation of the above instructions and that compliance report had to be sent to SO (PE-I) by 30.06.2001. The applicant’s case was that instead of completing the process of implementation and placement of officials against HSG-I before 30.06.2001, the Chief Postmaster General, A.P.Circle delayed and issued order in memo No.EST/2-35/2001, dated 12.10.2001 according sanction for creation of 101 HSG-I posts in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- by upgrading the same posts of norm-based HSG-II with effect from 30.03.2001 by abolishing 43 posts in PA/SA cadre in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- towards matching grants.

7. The further case of the applicant was that 101 posts of HSG-I posts were created by upgradation and as the applicant was included at serial No.30 in BCR Gradation list as on 01.09.2001, he ought to have been considered for such upgradation on the basis of his length of service and merit. The 1st respondent-Chief Postmaster General vide letter No.ST/4-2/GL/XXIII, dated 04.01.2002 pro