O R D E R

By Hon’ble Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)

The instant OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking relief to quash the impugned orders dated 27.09.2013, 19.02.2015 and 14.02.2017 vide which Screening Committee had rejected the claim of the applicant‟s husband regarding recommendation of financial up-gradation, which are based on false and fictitious grounds, as the service book was lost by the respondents before May, 2012 and not prepared till date, on that ground they rejected the same, and to direct the respondents to convene the review DPC for granting 1^st and 2^nd financial up gradation from the due dates, when her husband had completed 10 and 20 years of regular services, and to give any other direction deemed fit and to award cost.

2. The facts of the applicant is that the husband of the applicant was appointed as Postal Assistant on 14.04.1991 and inspite of completion of more than 17 years of regular service was not granted any financial up gradation, whereas under TBOP Scheme on completion of 16 years of regular service, her husband was eligible for TBOP. The case of the applicant is that successively different DPCs sat and considered her husband‟s case and denied him promotion on the ground that his service book was not available and his records were not proper, which is wrong as the respondents are duty bound to maintain the service book of the applicant and if it is for some reason not available, they should have re- constructed the same in time and granted him his financial upgradation as per eligibility.

3. On notice, the respondents have filed counter affidavit where the basic facts of the case are not denied that the husband of the applicant was appointed as Postal Assistant on 14.05.1991 in Saharanpur City Post Office. His case came up before DPC on 30.05.2007 and second time on 19.09.2008 and as his service book was not available, hence because of incomplete record the department could not take any action in his case for granting him TBOP. Further, DPC on 22/23.08.2013 also considered his case and for non availability of service book and pendency of Court case, the department could not give him any relief of financial upgradation. Further, his case came up on 21/22.08.2014 before DPC and as the case was pending before this Tribunal, hence he could not get any relief of financial upgradation. They further confirm that the husband of the applicant died on 03.06.2015 and contend that the department was right as the records were not available of the applicant‟s husband and because of that the DPC did not consider his promotion and hence, they say that the OA does not have any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

4. The applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit wherein further she says that vide their order memo No. B-2/MACP/2018 dated 08.08.2018, the husband of the applicant Raj Kumar I, Ex-PA Saharanpur HO who expired on 03.06.2015 was recommended for 1^st MACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and accordingly further benefits should be granted to the husband of the applicant. Subsequently, the applicant died on 21.10.2021 and her LRs (her children) were brought on record.

5. The case came up for final hearing on 08.03.2024. Shri S.K. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri K.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents were present and heard. We have gone through the records carefully and considered the rival contentions.

6. From the record it is evident that basic facts of the case is not denied and as the applicant of the OA Smt. Radha Rani, who was the wife of late Raj Kumar I, who was the employee of the respondents has also died, hence most of their prayer has become infructuous and what remains is that as the department has already given 1^st MACP benefit to the husband of the applicant and father of the present LRs, hence as per rules he should be granted the benefit of 2^nd MACP and accordingly, whatever necessary additionality in the retiral benefits and family pensio