AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
In this case relating to grade pay, the applicant has sought following reliefs:
“(a)Issue order/direction/in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 06.10.2016 passed by respondent no. 2 along with covering letter dated 17.10.2016 issued by respondent no. 4 whereby the claim of the applicant for grant of Pay of Rs. 5400/- has been denied on the sole ground that he has not completed four years‟ service in the cadre as contained in Annexure no. 1 (Compilation No.1).
(b)Issue an order, direction and command to the respondents not to give effect of the order, contained in Annexure No. 1 with a further prayer to grant the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- to the applicant from the due date with all benefits of service.
(c)Issue such other order/direction which may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(d)Allow the OA with cost against the respondents in view of the facts and circumstances, legal provisions and grounds raised in the application.”
The facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed to the post of Postal Assistant under the respondents. In due course, he was promoted to Postal Service Group „B‟ cadre on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 04.11.2004 issued by the office of Chief Postmaster General, Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai. Subsequently, he was appointed to Postal Service Group „B‟ on regular basis and allotted U.P. Circle vide order dated 20.11.2007 issued by respondent no. 2 and he was further allotted Lucknow Region and posted as Superintendent of Post Offices (SPOs), Raebareli vide order dated 26.11.2007 issued by respondent no. 4.
The respondents issued order dated 04.11.2008 regarding grant of pay scale of Rs. 8,000 – 13,500 with grade pay of Rs. 5,400 to the Postal Services Group „B‟ officers on completion of 4 years of service following which respondent no. 4 issued order dated 31.03.2009 for upgradation of grade pay of 23 officers, including the applicant, with effect from 01.01.2006. However, subsequently, vide order dated 25.11.2009, the applicant‟s name was deleted from the list of officers who were given grade pay of Rs. 5,400 on the ground that he was working in Postal Services Group „B‟ cadre on regular basis with effect from 31.12.2007 and thus he had not completed 4 years of regular service in that cadre on 01.01.2006.
The applicant retired from service on 30.04.2011 and he represented on 24.10.2011 for grant of grade pay of Rs. 5,400 with effect from 08.12.2008 and further represented on 10.09.2013. Having failed to elicit a positive response, the applicant approached this Tribunal in OA No. 156 of 2014 which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 14.04.2015 directing the respondents to decide his representation dated 24.10.2011. The applicant‟s representation was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 06.10.2016 which was communicated to him through letter dated 17.10.2016. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
The applicant contends that he has been denied the benefit of grade pay of Rs. 5,400 arbitrarily as several other persons have been granted the same benefit such as B L Verma, V P Mishra, V K Singh and Rameshwar Dayal.
The respondents, on the other hand, contend that the applicant was granted grade pay of Rs. 5,400 inadvertently and as he had not completed 4 years of service in Postal Services Group „B‟ cadre his name was deleted from the list of officers for grant of grade pay of Rs. 5,400. They further contend that the applicant was working on regular basis in Postal Services Group „B‟ cadre from 31.12.2007 and he retired from service on 30.04.2011 without completing 4 years‟ regular service in Postal Services Group „B‟ and, therefore, he is not entitled to grade pay of Rs. 5,400.
In regard to the cases cited by the applicant, the respondents have provided the following details:
| S. No. | Name & Designation | Date of Birth | Date of regular promotion in PS Group B cadre | Date of completion of 04 years regular service in PS Group B cadre | Date of retirement |
| 1. | Shri B L Verma, AD (MM), CO, Lucknow | 05.02.1953 | 29.05.2008 | 28.05.2012 | 28.02.2013 |
| 2. | Shri V P Mishra, AD (LC), CO, Lucknow | 10.01.1953 | 02.05.2008 | 01.05.2012 | 31.01.2013 |
| 3. | Shri V K Singh, SPOs, Hardoi | 16.01.1961 | 12.09.2008 | 12.09.2012 | 31.01.2021 |
| 4. | Shri Rameshwar Dayal, Supdt PSD, Bareilly | 10.09.1963 | 12.09.2008 | 12.09.2012 | 30.09.2023 |
The respondents state that grade pay of Rs. 5,400 was allowed in cases of the above officers cited by the applicant as they had completed 4 years of regular service in Postal Service Group „B‟ cadre.
We have heard both the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant relies on Union of India vs M Mathivanan 2006 (6) SCC 57 submitting that when ad-hoc promotion is followed by regular promotion without any break, then the ad-hoc service has to be counted for the purpose of service benefits. He further submits that in the order dated 04.11.2008 issued by the respondents, there is no mention of 4 years‟ „regular‟ service. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that 4 years of regular service in mandated in terms of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure Resolution dated 29.08.2008.
The first contention of the applicant is that other persons have been granted the benefit of grade pay of Rs. 5,400 whereas he has been denied similar dispensation. The respondents have explained each of the four cases cited by the applicant and have demonstrated that in each such case the person concerned had completed 4 years of regular service in Postal Service Group „B‟ cadre and, therefore, was given the grade pay of Rs, 5,400 while the applicant retired from service before he could complete 4 years of regular service in that cadre and so he was not given the grade pay of Rs. 5,400. It is evident that the cases cited by the applicant stand on a different footing as each one of them completed 4 years of regular service in Postal Service Group „B‟ cadre which is not the case with the applicant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant‟s case is similarly situated to the four cases cited by him.
The second limb of argument is that the order dated 04.11.2008 issued by the Department of Posts does not mention 4 years‟ regular service. The order dated 04.11.2008 is extracted below for reference:
“Subject: Recommendation of Sixth Pay Commission – Fixation of Pay of PS Group ‘B’ officers. Sir/Madam, I am directed to refer to this office letter No. 4-4/2008-PCC dated 04.09.2008 regarding Sixth CPC – Revision of Pay Scales in respect of Group „A‟, „B‟, „C‟ and „D‟ Employees 2008.
2.Sixth CPC has recommended the revised pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs. 4,800 at the initial stage and Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs. 5,400 after completion of 4 years of service to Postal Service Group ‘B’ officers. A doubt has arisen about fixation of pay of the P S Group „B‟ officers who have already completed 4 years service and date from which the upgraded pay scale has to be fixed. The issue has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Finance and it is clarified as under:
“Since the upgradations have been granted on non-functional basis which are not linked to vacancy, these upgradations may be given w.e.f. 01.01.2006. However, due screening in regard to vigilance clearance etc may be done by the competent authority before upgradation.”
3.Accordingly, the pay scale of P S Group ‘B’ officers is to be fixed as under:
Pre-revised Pay Scale Corresponding Pay Band and Grade Pay approved by Government Eligibility Date from which to be given effect Pay Band Grade Pay Rs. 7500-12000 Rs. 9300-34800 (PB 2) Rs. 4800 Initial Entry 01.01.2006 Rs. 8000-13500 Rs. 9300-34800 (PB 2) Rs. 5400 P S Group ‘B’ officers who have completed 4 years of service as on 01.01.2006 in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 7500-12000 01.01.2006 after due screening from vigilance angle (emphasis supplied)
It is evident that the requirement for grant of grade pay of Rs. 5,400 in the instructions quoted above is 4 years of service in Postal Services Group „B‟ cadre and there is no specific stipulation about 4 years of „regular‟ service in that cadre.
The respondents, however, rely on the Resolution dated 29.08.2008 of Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, relevant extracts of which are given below:
“No. 1/1/2008-IC. – The Sixth Central Pay Commission was set up by the Government of India vide Resolution No. 5/2/2006-E.III(A) dated 5th October, 2006 as amended by Resolution No. 5/2/2006-E.III(A) dated 7th December, 2006 (to include members of regulatory bodies (excluding RBI) set up under the Acts of Parliament) and resolution No. 5/2/2006-E.III(A) dated 8th August, 2007 (to include the officers and employees of the Supreme Court). On 24th March, 2008, the Commission submitted its Report relating to structure of emoluments, allowances, conditions of service and retirement benefits of Central Government employees including those belonging to Union Territories, members of All India Services, personnel belonging to the Defence Forces, officers and employees of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department (IA&AD) and Chairpersons/Members of Regulatory Bodies (except Reserve Bank of India). The Government has given careful consideration to the recommendations of the Commission in respect of civilian employees of the Central Government in Groups ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ as also those in the All India Services and Chairpersons/Members of Regulatory Bodies (except Reserve Bank of India) and have decided that the recommendations of the Commission in respect of these categories of Central Government employees, All India Services and Chairpersons/Members of Regulatory Bodies (except Reserve Bank of India) shall be accepted as a package subject to the modifications mentioned below:-…..
(x)Regarding Group ‘B’ cadres, the Commission’s recommendations will be modified in the following manner:-…..
(e)Group B officers of Departments of Posts, Revenue etc. will be granted Grade Pay of Rs. 5400 in PB-2 on non-functional basis after 4 years of regular service in the grade pay of Rs. 4800 in PB-2.” (emphasis supplied)
It is evident that the Government of India accepted the 6th CPC recommendations with certain modifications including that Group B officers of Department of Posts will be granted Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400 in PB-2 on non-functional basis after 4 years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800 in PB-2. Here, we find the unequivocal stipulation of 4 years of regular service.
In our opinion, the order dated 04.11.2008 is required to be interpreted in terms of the provision in the Resolution dated 29.08.2008 as the latter is the source of authority for the former. In this view of the matter, the stipulation of completion of 4 years of regular service in Postal Service Group „B‟ cadre holds sway and the respondents cannot be faulted for relying on the same in the applicant‟s case.
Finally, we address the third limb of argument canvassed by learned counsel for the applicant with reference to M Mathivanan (supra). In that case, Hon‟ble Supreme Court dealt with the stipulation of 16 years of service for promotion under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme of the Department of Posts formulated in terms of the memorandum dated 17.12.1983. The Apex Court took note of the words „16 years of service‟ and „sixteen years of regular service‟ contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the scheme, respectively and held that „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”‟. However, the facts and circumstances of the controversy in this OA are different as they relate to the service rendered in Postal Service Group „B‟ cadre as recommended by the 6th CPC and accepted by the Government of India with modifications as per Resolution dated 29.08.2008 and so we do not think that M Mathivanan (supra) can be of avail to the applicant.
In conclusion, the applicant has not been able to make out a case for the relief prayed for.
In view of the foregoing, this OA is dismissed for being devoid of merit.
Associated MAs also stand disposed of.
Parties shall bear their own costs.