Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 2506
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A. SELVAM AND P. KALAIYARASAN, JJ.
S. Thangavelu - Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India - Respondents
Writ Petition No.16 of 2014
Decided On : 05-08-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. R. Malaichamy
For the Respondent: Mr. V. Venkatesan, SCGSC for R1 to R3
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the applicability of scheme provisions, such as paragraph No.25 of Annexure-I, must be considered in light of the specific circumstances of the case, and entitlement to benefits should not be denied based on provisions that are not applicable.
Headnote:
Financial Upgradation - Employment Dispute - Annexure-I, Paragraph No.25 - The judgment discusses the applicability of paragraph No.25 of Annexure-I in the context of the petitioner's refusal of promotion and its impact on his entitlement to financial upgradation. The court held that the inhibition in paragraph No.25 of Annexure-I was not applicable to the petitioner as he had completed 30 years of service before the introduction of the scheme, and therefore, he was entitled to the 3rd upgradation. The court also relied on a previous order by the Central Administrative Tribunal in a similar case to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Postal Clerk, filed an Original Application seeking the grant of a 3rd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. The application was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal based on paragraph No.25 of Annexure-I, which stated that if a regular promotion was refused before becoming entitled to a financial upgradation, no financial upgradation shall be allowed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the inhibition in paragraph No.25 of Annexure-I was not applicable to the petitioner as he had completed 30 years of service before the introduction of the scheme, and therefore, he was entitled to the 3rd upgradation. The court also relied on a previous order by the Central Administrative Tribunal in a similar case to support its decision.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of paragraph No.25 of Annexure-I to the petitioner's case and its impact on his entitlement to financial upgradation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the inhibition in paragraph No.25 of Annexure-I was not applicable to the petitioner as he had completed 30 years of service before the introduction of the scheme, and therefore, he was entitled to the 3rd upgradation.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was quashed, and the petitioner was granted all benefits claimed by him.
A.SELVAM, J.
This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the fourth respondent in Original Application No.1572 of 2011, dated 24.09.2013 and quash the same and also for directing respondents 1 to 3 to grant the reliefs sought by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner herein, as applicant, has filed Original Application No.1572 of 2011, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, wherein, respondents 1 to 3 herein have been arrayed as respondents.
3. It is averred in the Original Application that the applicant has joined as Postal Clerk, on 28.07.1973. After completion of 36 years of service, he retired on 31.01.2010 as BCR Postal Assistant. The applicant has received two financial upgradations. He claimed third financial upgradation, on completion of 30 years of service. In the meantime, the applicant had been offered Standard Lower Selection Grade (LSG), on regular basis, on 20.07.2007. The applicant has declined promotion to LSG cadre by his representation dated 2.8.2007 and his declination has been accepted by the first respondent. The respondents have refused 3rd financial upgradation under MACP Scheme, in the light of the instructions contained in paragraph No.25 of Annexure-I of the the Directorates O.M.No.47/(MACPS)/2009-PCC, dated 18.9.2009. As per the said instruction, if regular promotion has been offered, but the same has been refused by an employee before claiming financial upgradation, no financial upgradation shall be allowed. Instruction has further stated that an employee will not be eligible to be considered for further financial upgradation till he agreed to be considered for promotion again. The next financial upgradation shall also be deferred to a period of debarment due to his refusal. In order to set aside the refusal order, the present Original Application has been filed.
4. The Central Administrative Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions raised on either side and by way of relying upon paragraph No.25 of Annexure-I, has rejected the claim of the applicant, by way of passing the impugned order and the same is being challenged in the present writ petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/applicant has sparingly contended that the writ petitioner/applicant has joined as a Postal Clerk on 28.07.1973 and after completion of 36 years, he has been permitted to retire on 31.01.2010 and before introduction of 3rd upgradation, he completed 30 years of service and even though during his service, he refused to accept promotion, the embargo created in paragraph No.25 of Annexure-I is not applicable to the petitioner/applicant and the Central Administrative Tribunal, without considering the applicability of paragraph No.25 of Annexure-I, has erroneously dismissed the Original Application and therefore, the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, is liable to be quashed.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 has argued solely on the basis of paragraph No.25 of Annexure-I.
7. The short point that involves in the present writ petition is as to whether the inhibition available in paragraph No.25 of Annexure-I is applicable to the case of the petitioner/applicant and the same reads as follows:
"If a regular promotion has been offered but was refused by the employee before becoming entitled to a financial upgradation, no financial upgradation shall be allowed as such an employee has not been stagnated due to lack of opportunities. If, however, financial upgradation has been allowed due to stagnation and the employees subsequently refuse the promotion, it shall not be a ground to withdraw the financial upgradation. He shall, however, not be eligible to be considered for further financial upgradation till he agrees to be considered for promotion again and the second and the next finan
