CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH : BANGALORE
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.124 OF 2008
THURSDAY, THIS THE 25th DAY OF MARCH, 2010
HON'BLE SHRI B. VENKATESWARA RAO ... MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ... MEMBER (A)
S/o Kethya Nayak,
Aged about 50 years,
Working as Sub Post Master,
Bhdravathi-577 301, Shimoga District.
R/o NMC, Hosamane,
Bhadravathi – 577 301, Shimoga District. ... Applicants
(By Advocate Shri B.Veerabhadra)
1. The Principal Chief Post Master General,
Postal, Karnataka Circle, Palace Road,
2. The Post Master General,
S.K. Region, Palace Road,
Bangalore – 560 001.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Post,
4. The Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communications & I.T.,
Dak Bhavan, Parliament Street,
New Delhi – 110 001.
5. Sri Teekappa,
Lower Selection Grade,
Ambedkar Nagar PO,
Shimoga – 577 201. ... Respondents
(By Advocate Shri M. Rajakumar,
Addl. Central Govt. Counsel For R-1 to 4)
O R D E R
Hon'ble Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A) :
The applicant is aggrieved by the circle seniority list of Postal Assistants circulated by the Dept. vide their letter No.STA/4-4/CGL/2006, dated 26.11.2007 (Annexure-A/3) and another letter bearing No.STA/A-4/CGL/2006, dated 28.12.2006 (Annexure-A/5). On the basis of the Circle Seniority List, the applicant was denied promotion as LSG even when his junior viz., Shri Teekappa, Respondent No.5 was promoted. The prayer of the applicant therefore, is to give him promotion and all consequential benefits from the date Respondent No.5 Shri Teekappa was promoted.
2. Heard Shri B. Veerabhadra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M. Rajakumar, Additional Central Govt. Standing Counsel for Respondents No.1 to 4. Though Respondent No.5 was served, none represented him.
3. Briefly, the claim of the applicant is that, based on date of entry in service which is not disputed, the applicant is senior to Respondent No.5.
Applicant Respondent No.5
Date of Entry : 27.03.1979 29.03.1979
TBOP 08.04.1995 29.03.1995
BCR 01.07.2005 01.07.2005
Further, the applicant relies on the Gradation List of BCR/TBOP/NON TBOP officials as on 01.07.2005 corrected upto 31.10.2005 in which the name of the applicant appears at Sl. No.44 whereas the name of Respondent No.5 is at Sl. No.49. (Annexure-A/1) and this position is also not disputed by the respondents. Next the learned counsel for the applicant relies on column No.11 of the Recruitment Rules framed by the Department of
Posts under the Ministry of Communications and IT, as amended vide their letter dated 30.5.2005 (Annexure-A/4). The same is extracted below:
"11. By Promotion. Where juniors who have completed their qualifying/ eligibility service are being considered for promotion, their seniors would also be considered provided they are not short of the requisite qualifying/eligibility service by more than one year and have successfully completed their probation period, if prescribed."
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondents Shri M. Rajakumar submitted that the respondents took the date of confirmation as the basis for promotion to the LSG grade. He states that the applicant was confirmed on 01.03.1986 whereas Respondent No.5 was confirmed on 21.02.1981.
5, Admittedly, the applicant was recruited as a Clerk in the Department of Posts on 27.3.1979 and Respondent No.5 was appointed on 29.3.1979. Thus, o the basis of entry in service, the applicant is senior to Respondent No.5. The applicant received his orders of TBOP and BCR in the same year but later than that of Respondent. Further, the applicant was confirmed on 01.03.1986 whereas the Respondent No.5 was confirmed on 21.02.1981. The sole ground on which the respondents promoted Respondent No.5 ahead of the applicant was that he was confirmed ahead of the applicant. However, the learned counsel for the applicant argued that the amended Recruitment Rules amount to calculating only seniority from the date of entry in service and the seniority is not dependent on the date of confirmation. The Respondents submitted that earlier it was the practice to take into account the date of confirmation of the employees for promotion to LSG. But on pointing out the Recruitment Rules of 30.05.2006 and the gradation list corrected upto 31.10.2005, he agrees that once the Recruitment Rules are amended in 2006 the date of entry into the service will have to be considered for
promotion to LSG.
6. It is therefore seen that the Recruitment Rules amended by the Department are quite categorical for taking into account the date of entry in the service while deciding promotions and not the date of confirmation. The gradation list prepared by the department itself, shows that the applicant at Sl, No.32 is senior to Respondent No.5 at Sl. No.49. Therefore, the respondents should have taken into consideration the amended Recruitment Rules and the consequential gradation list while making promotions to LSG. Hence, the application succeeds.
7. It is, therefore, ordered that the applicant should be given promotion to the grade of LSG from the date Respondent No.5 was promoted with all consequential benefits such as service and monetary benefits. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. With the above directions, the OA is allowed with no order as to costs.
(LEENA MEHENDALE) (B. VENKATESWARA RAO)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)