O.A. No. 369/2008. Case: 1. Mariamma Abraham; 2. Cicily K.M.; 3. V.K. Sreenivasan Vs 1. Union of India, Secretary to Government, Department of Post, New Delhi; 2. Postmaster General, Trivandrum; 3. Senior Superintendent, Kottayam; 4. P.S. Subhash, (Prip), Pathanamthitta; 5. V.R. Sobhana, Apm, Head Post Office, Kottayam; 6. K. Rajan, Apm, Calicut; 7. H. Ganeshan, Apm, Ernakulam; 8. G. Muraleedhran DpmSb. , Pathanamthita; 9. K. Rama, Spm Poothole, Trissur; 10. K.T. Sheela, Spm, Koratti; 11. V.S. Jayasree, Spm, Koduvayur, Palghat; 12. K. Satheesan, Apm Account. , Palghat; 13. M.K. Sudheer, Kannur; 14. K.E. Balagopalan, Spm Ct Mcpo Calicut Postal Division; 15. E.K.Narayanan, Apm, Kannur; 16. A. Sivasankaran, Spm, Calicut. Central Administrative Tribunal
|Case Number:||O.A. No. 369/2008|
|Party Name:||1. Mariamma Abraham; 2. Cicily K.M.; 3. V.K. Sreenivasan Vs 1. Union of India, Secretary to Government, Department of Post, New Delhi; 2. Postmaster General, Trivandrum; 3. Senior Superintendent, Kottayam; 4. P.S. Subhash, (Prip), Pathanamthitta; 5. V.R. Sobhana, Apm, Head Post Office, Kottayam; 6. K. Rajan, Apm, Calicut; 7. H. Ganeshan, Apm, Ernakulam; 8. G. Muraleedhran DpmSb. , Pathanamthita; 9. K. Rama, Spm Poothole, Trissur; 10. K.T. Sheela, Spm, Koratti; 11. V.S. Jayasree, Spm, Koduvayur, Palghat; 12. K. Satheesan, Apm Account. , Palghat; 13. M.K. Sudheer, Kannur; 14. K.E. Balagopalan, Spm Ct Mcpo Calicut Postal Division; 15. E.K.Narayanan, Apm, Kannur; 16. A. Sivasankaran, Spm, Calicut|
|Counsel:||V. Sajithkumar, Tpm Ibrahim Khan, O.V. Radhakrishnan|
|Judges:||Dr. K. B. S. Rajan (Judicial Member) & K. Noorjehan (Administrative Member)|
|Issue:||Posts and Telegraph (Selection Grade post) Recruitment Rules, 1976|
|Judgement Date:||March 11, 2009|
|Court:||Central Administrative Tribunal|
K. Noorjehan (Administrative Member), (Ernakulam Bench)
The applicants are aggrieved by Annexure A-1 gradation list of LSG officials dated 1.7.2007 in which Postal Assistants promoted to LSG cadre through the Fast Track Scheme were given preference over the applicants.
The facts in brief are as follows: The applicants are Postal Assistants who entered service in the years 1969, 1973, and 1973 respectively. On 30.11.1983 consequent on an agreement between the staff side and the Department, a Time Bound Promotion Scheme was introduced according to which all the officials belonging to the basic grade of Group-C to which there is direct recruitment and who have completed 16 years of service were placed in the next higher grade having the same scale of pay as that of LSG (A-2). Accordingly, the applicants were granted financial upgradation in the higher scales under TBOP in the year 1985, 1985 and 1988 respectively on completion of 16 years of service in the basic cadre of Postal Assistant. They were given pay equivalent to LSG officials and were working against such supervisory vacancies wherever available. With the introduction of TBOP scheme, promotion to 1/3rd quota of LSG by departmental competitive examination stood abolished w.e.f. 1.1.83. On introduction of the Time Bound Scheme, the respondents were not effecting promotion to LSG cadre even when the applicants worked against supervisory posts. The Posts and Telegraph (Selection Grade post) Recruitment Rules 1976 governing promotion to the LSG, HSG-II and HSG-I were not followed (A4). On completion of 26 years of service, the applicants were given BCR introduced vide A-3 with equivalent pay to HSG-II. However, in 2002 the Department introduced a scheme of Fast Track Promotion under Director General, Department of Posts vide letter dated 11.2.2002 (Annexure A-5) according to which 33.34% of the vacancies arising in the cadre of Lower Selection Grade were to be filled up on the basis of selection-cum-seniority and 66.66% of the vacancies were to be filled up by means of promotion through a Departmental Competitive Examination with subjects relating to functional needs. It was clarified that norm based LSG/HSG-II post may be filled up in terms of the relevant Recruitment Rules from the year from which norm based promotions have not been carried out. The promotions to HSG-1 will be based on notional seniority in HSG-II. The ways and means to have adequate personnel in HSG-II, were laid down in A-6. Subsequently it was clarified that the vacancies in LSG and HSG-II posts that arose after 7.2.2002 will be filled up in terms of revised Recruitment Rules (A-7). These instructions were implemented in Kerala Circle (A-8). Thereafter, on 30.5.2006 the respondents withdrew A-5 amendment and revised rules were notified by which 100% promotion was introduced in LSG, HSG-II and HSG-I based on seniority and that the unfilled vacancies were directed to be filled as per the revised Recruitment Rules based on seniority (A-10). The LSG cadre which was till then a Divisional Cadre was converted to a Circle cadre. All the vacancies in the LSG from 1983 to 2007 have been filled by a single order dated 3.5.2007. Had the Administration effected LSG promotion at the right time, the applicants would have been eligible for LSG scale at least 10-20 years back. The appointment of the 5th respondent in HSG-1 ahead of the applicants will adversely affect the applicants promotion prospects. Pointing out the anomalies, the 1st and 3rd applicants submitted A-13 and A-14 representations which are not yet disposed of. Hence they have filed this O.A. seeking the following reliefs:
(i) To declare that the applicants are entitled to be considered for notional promotion against the norm based LSG and HSG-II vacancies based on the seniority in the basic cadre with effect from the date of occurrence of vacancies (i.e. Vacancies occurred from 30.11.1983 to 7.2.2002) and that the respondents 4 to 16 are only be entitled to be accommodated into the LSG vacancies which were fallen between 7.2.2002 and 18.5.2006 and that the placement of the respondents 4 to 16 in Annexure A-1 above the applicant is highly illegal and arbitrary
(ii) To quash Annexure A1, A-11 and A-12
(iii) To direct the respondents to consider the applicants for notional promotion against the norm based LSG based on seniority with effect from the date of occurrence of vacancies ( i.e. Vacancies occurred from 30.11.1983 to 7.2.2002) and to grant them HSG-II and HSG-I promotions with all consequential benefits and not to grant seniority to the respondents 4 to 16 over the applicants.
(iv) Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and the Court may deem fit to grant, and
(v) Grant the cost of this Original Application.
The grounds urged by the applicants are as follows:
(i) The applicants are the senior most officials to be considered against vacancies of LSG in view of A-6 to A-10. Had they been placed in the seniority list of LSGs in the year in which the vacancies arose, they would have become eligible to be promoted against norm based HSG-II and HSG-I on their due turn. The promotions...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL