2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12832
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Aditya Prasad Panda – Appellant
Versus
D/o Post – Respondent
O.A./631/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH OA No. 631 of 2017 Reserved on: 2.9.2024 Pronounced on : 4.9.2024 CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Aditya Prasad Panda, aged about 55 years, S/o. Late Narayan Panda, resident of Vill- Kantioputasahi, PO- Kantioputasahi, Via- Analaberini, P.S.- Tumusingha, Dist- Dhenkanal, Odisha, PIN -759026, presently working as Sub=Postmaster, Parjang SO, At/PO-Parjang SO, Dist-
Dhenkanal, Odisha, PIN-759120.
......Applicant VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through its Secretary-cum-Director General of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110116.
2. Chief Post Master General, Orissa Circle, At/po-Bhubaneswar, Dist-
Khurda -751001. Odisha-751001.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Dhenkanal Division, Dhenkanal-
759001.
......Respondents For the applicant : Mr. C.P. Sahani, Counsel For the respondents : Ms. B.R. Swain, Counsel O R D E R Mr.Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, J.M.
The instant OA has been filed by the applicant challenging the rejection order vide Order No.B3-141/Ch.I dated 22.06.2017 of the departmental authorities and non-consideration of his case for promotion to the cadre of LSG, HSH-II, HSG-I and HSG-I (Non Functional Grade) with grade pay Rs.4800/- at par with his juniors with the following prayers:-
“(i) Admit the Original Application, and (ii) After hearing the counsels for the parties be further pleased to quash the Order No.B3-141/Ch.I dated 22.06.2017 at Annexure-A/6 and further pleased to direct the departmental respondents to grant notional promotions to the applicant to the cadre of LSG, HSG-II and HSG-I considering the date of grant of TBOP and give promotion to the cadre of HSG-I (Non Functional Grade) with GP Rs.4800/- from the date of promotion of his juniors giving consequential benefits.
And/or (iii) Pass any other order(s) as the Hon’ble Tribunal deem just and proper in the interest of justice.”
The brief fact of the case is that the applicant joined as Postal Assistant in the Department of Posts in Dhenkanal Division on 14.10.1981. Thereafter, he was promoted to the next higher scale of pay i.e. LSG Cadre in Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) Scheme w.e.f. 14.10.1997. It is submitted by the applicant that vide Memo dated 04.02.2015 (Annexure-A/2) the Respondent No.2 promoted ten Postal Assistants including five juniors to the applicant to the cadre of LSG, HSG-II and HSG-I notionally from retrospective dates on the ground of implementation of Order of this Tribunal dated 23.07.2008 passed in O.A. No.1196/2004. Thereafter, the CPMG Odisha issued draft gradation/seniority list of HSG-I (Postal) Officials of Odisha Circle on 16.08.2016 (Annexure-A/3) in which the juniors to the applicant who were promoted notionally from retrospective dates have got place. It is submitted that vide Memo dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure-A/4) the Respondent No.2 approved eight (08) new HSG-I (Postal) (Non Functional Grade) with G.P. from Rs.4600/- to Rs.4800/- including three Postal Assistants who were notionally promoted as HSG-I (Postal) on 04.02.2015 namely (i) Chhotray Majhi (Sl. No.1) (ii) Birabar Behera (Sl. No.3) and (iii) Nityananda Nath Sharma (Sl No.4) are juniors to the applicant. Being aggrieved, the applicant made representation dated 08.05.2017 (Annexure-A/5) to the Respondent No.2 with prayer to give him similar benefits which wer given to the juniors. Vide order dated 22.06.2017 (Annexure-A/6) the Respondent No.3 rejected the representation dated
08.05.2017 of the applicant with the following observation”-
“…Please refer to your representation dated 08.05.2017 on the subject noted above. In this connection it is to intimate that as per Directorate letter No.93-13/2012-SPB-II dated 23.01.2015, the order of the Hon’ble CAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated 23.07.2008 is applicable to those officials, who had filed OA No.1196/2004 and 1213 to 1221/2004. “
Being aggrieved with the above order of the Respondent No.3, the applicant approached this