2006 Supreme(SC) 546

2006(5) Supreme 534
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
Arijit Pasayat and C.K. Thakker, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. — Appellants
versus
M. Mathivanah — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5739 of 2005
Decided on 9-6-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Mohan Parasaran, ASG, S. Wasim, A. Qadri, V.K. Verma, Shreekant N. Terdol, Advocates.
For the Respondent : S. Nanda Kumar, K. Mayk Samy, G. Ananda, A. Santha Kumar, V.N. Raghupathy, Advocates.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW — Time Bound Promotion Scheme formulated by Postal Authorities in Dec. 1983 — Scheme provided placing of officers in the next higher grade who had completed sixteen years of service in Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ and scheme came into effect from Nov. 1983 — Respondent selected in 1981 as Postal Assistant was appointed on daily wages and after training was placed in Reserve Training Pool, Postal Assistant to be absorbed as regular Postal Assistant — In August 1983 he volunteered for enrolment in Army Postal Services and was appointed as Postal Assistant w.e.f. 30-9-1983 after being selected as Warrant Officer — His claim for Time Bound Promotion Scheme made in 1999 was denied on ground that he had not completed sixteen years of “regular” service — Central Administrative allowed application holding that his services ought to have been considered from Sep. 1983 and since he completed sixteen years in 1999, he was entitled to benefit of Time Bound Promotion Scheme — High Court upheld order in writ — Appeal — Time Bound Promotion Scheme no where used connotation “regular” service — Sixteen years of “regular” service for promotion provided for consideration under the scheme was for Departmental Promotion Committee — Tribunal rightly held that Paragraph 1 in the scheme was relevant — No infirmity in reasoning adopted and conclusion recorded by CAT or by High Court.

       Held : Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the order passed by CAT and confirmed by the High Court deserves no interference. It is not in dispute by and between the parties that the respondent was enrolled as Reserve Training Pool Postal Assistant and was appointed initially as Postal Assistant in the year 1981. It is also not in dispute that in 1983, he volunteered for enrollment in Army Postal Services and was absorbed in August, 1983 by an order dated August 19, 1983. In the conditions referred to earlier, it was stated that the appointment was purely on ad hoc and temporary basis and the respondent would have no right to claim regular absorption in preference to his seniors in RTP list of the Division. It was also stated that the inter-se-seniority between the candidates who volunteered for such services and candidates who were appointed in Civil Wing would not be disturbed. It is also undisputed that pursuant to the willingness shown by the respondent, he was regularized in 1989. But it cannot be disputed and is not disputed before us that he was appointed as Warrant Officer in September, 1983.(Para 10)

       Reading of the above two paragraphs makes it abundantly clear that so far as placing of an officer in the ‘next higher grade’ is concerned, what is relevant and material is that such official belonging to basic grades in Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ must have completed “sixteen years of service in that Grade”. The said paragraph, no where uses the connotation ‘regular’ service. Paragraph 2 which provides for Departmental Promotion Committee and consideration of cases of officials for ‘promotion’, provides for sixteen years of ‘regular’ service. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly considered paragraph 1 as relevant and held that basic eligibility condition for being placed in the next higher grade is that the officer must have completed sixteen years of service in the basic grade in Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’. Though in other paragraphs, the service was qualified by the adjective ‘regular’, the said qualification was not necessary for the purpose of paragraph 1. Since the employee wanted the benefit of placement in ‘next higher grade’, what was required to be established by him was that he had completed sixteen years of service in the grade and the said requirement had been complied with in view of the fact that with effect from September 30, 1983 he was appointed as Warrant Officer. He was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of ‘next higher grade’ under paragraph 1 from 1999. The authorities were, therefore, not justified in rejecting the claim and accordingly the petition was allowed. The High Court rightly upheld the direction of CAT.(Para 13)

       Since the respondent had completed sixteen years of service in 1999, he would be entitled to the benefit of paragraph 1 of Time Bound Promotion Scheme and the action of the authorities in not granting the said benefit was illegal and contrary to law. The Central Administrative Tribunal as well as the High Court were, therefore, right in setting aside the said action and by directing the authorities to extend the benefit of the Scheme to the respondent. We see no infirmity in the reasoning adopted and conclusion recorded by the CAT or by the High Court and find no substance in the appeal of the appellants.(Para 18)