The inclusion of the induction training period for promotion benefits under the BCR scheme is valid, as established by the relevant circular.

J U D G M E N T

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

1.We have heard the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents on notice. The short issue is as to whether the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench had erred in law and jurisdiction in holding that the respondents who are working as Postal Assistants are entitled to count the period of induction training spent by them to enjoy the benefit of BCR scheme (Biennial Cadre Review Scheme). While it is true that the petitioners had joined service on 02.12.1981 and 03.12.1981 respectively, the fact of the matter remains that the Department of Posts had issued circular letter No.44-47/98-SPB dated 31.07.2000, after consultation with the Department of Personnel Training. It was specifically stated that the period of induction training may also be counted for the benefit of promotion under the two schemes including BCR Scheme referred to in that circular letter. It was also stated therein that the said circular letter is issued with concurrence of Integrated Finance Advice dated 25.07.2000. A copy of that circular, as available in SwamysnewS, has been placed before the Bench by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. We quote it hereunder:

“G.I., Dept. of Posts, Cir.Lr.No.44-47/98-SPB.II, dated 31-7-2000 Period of Induction training shall also count for promotion under the TBOP/BCR Scheme The issue regarding counting of the period of induction training spent by the employees of this Department for benefit of promotion under the TBOP/BCR Schemes has been under consideration of this office for some time. After consultation with the Department of Personnel and Training, it has now been decided that the period of induction training may also be counted for benefit of promotion under the above schemes. However, past cases decided otherwise would not be covered by the above orders. This issues with concurrence of Integrated Finance Advice vide their Diary No.378/FA/2000, dated 25-7-2000. ”

2.The aforesaid circular essentially sets at naught the other arguments raised by the Department in this original petition.

We see no distinction being made by the Department of Posts or Department of Personnel and Training, though the learned counsel for Union of India says that the said circular would apply only to cases generated after 01.01.1986 and that the judgments rendered by the Tribunal in different other cases related to persons who were retired from service. The cut off date is pointed out by the learned counsel for the Union of India on the basis of the date of effect of the Report of the 4th Pay Commission. We see that no such distinction can be made while applying the Government decision as noted above.

3.For the aforesaid reasons, we find no jurisdictional error or illegality in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The original petition, therefore, fails.

In the result, this original petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)