Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1060
1
O.A. No. 627/2019
Item No. 89
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.627/2019
This the 20thday of February, 2023
Hon’ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Hon’ble Mrs. Pratima K Gupta, Member (J)
1. Naresh Chand Sharma, Aged-60 Years, ‘c’
S/o Late Sh. Suraj Bhan Sharma,
Retired as Postal Assistant, from hilmil HPO, Delhi-95
R/o 46/1A/2, East Azad Nagar. Street No.16
Delhi-110051
2. Randhir Singh, Aged- 67 Years ‘c’
S/o Sh. Yad Ram,
Retired as APM, from Kalkaji HPO, New Delhi-19
R/o 21A, Ashoka Apartment, Devli Village,
New Delhi-110080
3. Arjun Singh, Aged 63 Years, ‘c’
S/o Late Sh. Amar Dass,
Retired as APM from Kalkaji HPO, New Delhi-19
R/o H.No.264, Street No.4, Asola Housing Complex
New Delhi-110074
4. Prem Chand, Aged-66 Years, ‘c’
S/o Sh. Panjak Ram,
Retired as DPM from Delhi GPO, Delhi-06
R/o II D 54. Kamna Vaishali, Ghaziabad (UP)
5. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, Aged-60 Years, ‘c’
S/o Sh. Sunehri Lal Sharma,
Retired as PRI(P) from Jhilmil HPO, Delhi-95
R/o A-18, Kondli Colony, Dr. Raj Rani Street,
Delhi-110096
6. Bhagwat Prasad, Aged-65 Years, ‘c’
S/o Late Sh. Chiranji Lal,
Retired as BCR PA from N.F.C. Post Office, New Delhi-25
R/o A-33, Kondli Colony, P.O. Vasundhara Enclave,
Delhi-110096
7. Sube Singh, Aged-60 Years, ‘c’
S/o Shri Bhan Singh,
Retired as PA from Jhilmil HPO, Delhi-95
R/o 56-Village Kadkad Model, 1.E. Sahibabad.
Distt. Ghaziabad-201010
8. Jagat Singh. Aged-60 Years, ‘c’
S/o Sh. Nobat Singh,
2
O.A. No. 627/2019
Item No. 89
Retired as PA in Delhi GPO, Delhi-110006
R/o H.No.G-80, Gali No.02, Brahampuri,
Delhi-110053
9. Inder Pal Singh, Aged-64 Years, ‘c’
S/o Sh. Tek Ram,
Retired as APM from Jhilmil HPO, Delhi-95
R/o 252, Samashpur Khalsa, P.O. Ujwa
New Delhi-110073
10. Narender Singh, Aged-60 years ‘c’
S/o Shri Hukam Singh,
Retired as PA from Nand Nagri C-Block P0. Delhi-93
R/o D-542/1, Gali No.09, Ashok Nagar,
Opp. Dispensary, Delhi-110093
11. Dharam Pal Sharma, Aged-62 Years, ‘c’
S/o Sh. Sunhari Lal Sharma,
Retired as PA from New Seemapuri P.O, Delhi-95
R/o A-19/1, Nai Basti, Kondli, Delhi-96
12. Phool Singh, Aged-64 Years, ‘c’
S/o Shri Lala Ram,
Retired as PA from Seelampur P.O. (PRIP)
R/o A-12, Street No.01. New Modern Shahdara,
Delhi-110032
13. Mukesh Babu Chauhan, Aged-60 Years, ‘c’
S/o Shri Prathvi Raj Singh Chauhan,
Retired as PRIP from Krishan Nagar, HPO, Delhi-51
R/o H.No.828, Gali No.13, Mandoli Extension,
Delhi-110093
14. S.C. Mathur, Aged-64 Years, ‘c’
S/o Sh. Bankay Lal Mathur,
Retired as Postal Assistant from Delhi East Divn., Delhi-51
R/o D-137, Gali No.5, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi-110092
15. Pradeep Kumar Nanda, Aged- 62 Years, ‘c’
S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash Nanda,
Retired as PA from Krishna Nagar, HPO, Delhi-51,
R/o F-235B, Near Sai Chowk, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi-110095.
16. Subhash Chander Goyal,
Aged- 66 Years, ‘c’
S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash Goyal,
Retired as APM. from Seelampur PO, Delhi
R/o 32/2, Radhey Puri, Street No.02, Extn-11,
Krishan Nagar, Delhi-51
17. Shri Krishan Sharma, Aged-60 Years, ‘c’
S/o Sh. Gopi Chand Sharma,
Retired as PA from the Office of Sr. Supdt of PO's,
Delhi East Division, Delhi-51
R/o 229, Main 2011, Road, Shiv Vihar, Phase-IV
3
O.A. No. 627/2019
Item No. 89
(Near Ambedkar Gate) Delhi-110094
18. Govind Singh Rawat, Aged-60 Years ‘c’
S/o Sh. Bhawan Singh Rawat,
Retired as PA from Vivek Vihar PO, Delhi-95
R/o C-110, Telecom Staff Qtrs, Vivek Vihar
Delhi-110095
…..Applicants
(Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Communication & IT
Department of Post, Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. The Director General,
Department of Post, Govt. of India,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. The Assistant Director General (GDS/PCC),
Ministry of Communication & IT,
Department of Post, Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office,
Delhi East Division,
Delhi-110051
....Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. S N Verma)
4
O.A. No. 627/2019
Item No. 89
Aggrieved by denial of third financial up-gradation under
the MACP Scheme, the applicants have preferred the instant
Original Application seeking the following relief(s):-
“(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an
order of quashing the impugned order dated 12.2.2018(Annex.A/1)
and order dated 28.2.2018 (Annex A/2), declaring to the effect that
the same is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently pass
an order directing the respondents to consider and to grant third
financial upgradation from the date of completion of 30 years of
service from the date of appointment as Postal Assistant under MACP
scheme with all consequential benefits including the arrears of
difference of pay and allowances and including the revision of
retirement benefits with interest by way of extending the benefits of
judgment dated 3.7.2015 passed by the CAT Guwati Bench in OA No.
308 of 2013.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper
may also be granted to the applicants with the costs of litigation.”
2.
At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants draws
attention to the judgment of this Tribunal dated 11.11.2022 in O.A.
No. 112/2017 and another dated 06.01.2023 in O.A. No
4038/2015, and argues that the issue at stake is strikingly similar
to the facts and circumstances as also the issues agitated in the
two aforesaid OAs. He submits that without dwelling in detail
upon the background and the history of the case, it would be
appropriate that the present Original Application is also disposed
of against the background of the aforesaid judgments. To clarify,
he submits that the issue is limited, that is, whether the
appointment of the applicants as Postal Assistant on account of
their
success
in
the
Limited
Departmental
Competitive
Examination (LDCE) is to be considered as a promotion to be
5
offset against their claim of financial up-gradation or it is to be
considered as a fresh appointment because even though a
promotion post, the promotion was not effected in the normal
routine course. He submits that it has been conclusively held in
the judgments he is relying upon which has further relied upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the LDCE, for all
interests and purposes, is a direct recruitment.
3.
Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contests
that there is much of a similarity as claimed by the applicants. He
submits that financial up-gradation is a measure personal to an
employee and claim of each employee is to be determined in terms
of his eligibility as set forth in the relevant Recruitment Rules. He
further argues that LDCE is not an open competitive examination
but merely a fast track promotion for which a specific provision
exists in the Recruitment Rules. Since it is a promotion, benefit of
financial up-gradation cannot be accorded as MACP Scheme
accords this benefit only in lieu of promotion.
4.
He submits that the applicants cannot claim the benefit of
both promotion as also financial up-gradation. He argues that in a
plethora of judgments of various Hon’ble High Courts and the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, this principle has been fully established
and hence the applicants are not entitled for the relief as claimed
by them. He submits that an SLP qua the legal complexities
involved in the matter is pending in the Hon’ble Apex Court and
6
since the said Court is seized of the matter, it would be premature
for this Tribunal to adjudicate upon the claim of the applicants.
5.
Learned counsel further draws support from a judgment of
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 30.09.2019 passed in a
bunch of writ petitions the lead one being WP(C) 2806/2016,
wherein in this entire issue, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had
advised that as the Hon’ble Apex Court was seized of the matter, it
would be prudent to await the outcome.
6.
We have heard the arguments put forth by the learned
counsel for the parties and also gone through the pleadings on
record. We have given
