ORAL ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Member(J))

In the instant OA, the applicants seek the following relief:

“1. To call for the records of the 4^th Respondent pertaining to his orders made in Annexures-10 to 12 dated 02.09.2015, 08.09.2015 and 14.09.2015 respectively and set aside the same; consequent to

2. direct the Respondents to grant BCR benefits on completion of 26 years of service and further to direct the Respondents to extend the benefit of judgments of this Hon'ble Tribunal made in O.A.No.679 of 2003 dated 19.03.2004 and the Judgment of the Cuttack Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal made in Ο.Α.Νο. 1196 of 2004 O.A.Nos.

1213-1221 of 2004 dated 23.07.2008; also

3. direct the Respondents to revise and re-fix the retirement service benefits of the Applicant accordingly and to pay the arrears of pension etc; and

4. To pass such further or other orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. When the matter was taken up for final hearing, both the counsels submits that the issue is covered by the Judgment, dated 19.03.2024 of this Tribunal in OA 1564/2015. The relevant portion of the Judgment is extracted below:

4. Heard the learned counsel for both sides in extenso and perused the records.

5. The main ground on which the applicants have put forward their arguments is that the department has been stating that the TBOP & BCR promotions are equivalent to LSG & HSG-II respectively. In support of this contention, the applicants have enclosed a number of communications issued by the department copies of which have been placed for our perusal. In all these communications during the years, i.e., 14.02.1984 to 11.10.1991, the department had indicated that employee should get atleast two promotions during the course of their career and it is for fulfilment of this minimum requirement that these schemes have been introduced. In all consequences, the respondents have been indicating that the TBOP/BCR is a promotion. Therefore, it is the stand of the applicant that now they cannot modify their stand to state that these two promotions are only financial upgradation and not promotion in the sense of the term(sic). The applicants retired from service while working as Biennial Cadre Review Sub-Postmaster/Assistant Sub- Postmaster, (BCR SPM). They were granted TBOP & BCR accordingly. The Postal Assistant is the feeder cadre to the next higher grade of LSG, HSG-II & HSG-I. After introduction of the TBOP & BCR scheme, the Postal Department kept in abeyance in giving promotion to the eligible officials to the cadre of LSG because the pay of the cadre of TBOP & LSG is one and the same. The pay for the BCR & HSG-II is one and the same and these facts have not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. It is to be noted that the promotion to the cadre of LSG was kept in abeyance by the department for a very long time. Therefore, the BCR officials having three years experience were posted to work as HSG-I in the promotional cadre vide letter dated 05.07.2004 and 20.11.2006 respectively and thereafter the minimum requirement of three years service is reduced. It is very clear from the letter dated 20.11.2006 that the BCR/LSG officials were posted in the promotional cadre of HSG-I on adhoc basis till recruitment rules were notified to the cadre of HSG-I. Therefore, the services rendered in the capacity of BCR is equivalent to HSG-II. Hence the applicants are also entitled to advance the BCR benefits on completion of 26 years of service in the light of the judgment rendered by this Hon. Tribunal in the matter of K.Perumal & another Vs. UOI in OA 67/2003 decided on 19.03.2004. The order passed by this Tribunal in the said case has been upheld by the Hon'ble High court of Madras in WP 27062/2004 and the same has attained finality. The applicants also relied upon the order passed by the Cuttack Bench of CAT in OA 1194/2004 & 1213 to 1221/2004. It is to be noted that while considering the issue