Mrs. Minni Gulati vs Union Of India & Anr.

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) : By filing the instant OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the order dated 30.7.2019 (Annexure A1) whereby his representations were rejected on the ground that the benefits of CAT’s orders to give benefit of BCR from the date of completion of 26 years service was case specific and cannot be extended to all officials as BCR was to be given w.e.f. 01 January and 01 July only and not from the date of completion of 26 years of service.

Brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the applicant joined as Postal Assistant (hereinafter referred to as ‘PA) in the respondents’ department on 27.5.1979. She was subsequently transferred to Returned Letter Office, Delhi. The applicant was due for benefit under the Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) on completion of 26 years on completion of her regular service on 27.5.2005 (Annexure A/2). The applicant was, however, granted the benefit of BCR only from 1.7.2005, which resulted in the loss of one increment on implementation of the recommendations of the 6^th Central Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.2006. As per the BCR policy, an employee is entitled to be placed to the next higher grade under BCR after completion of 26 years of service. As per the said Scheme, the official, who have completed 26 years of service between 1^st January to 30^th June are entitled to the second time bound promotion under the said Scheme from 1^st July of the year whereas the officials who have completed 26 years of service from 1^st July to 31^st December are entitled to get promotion under BCR Scheme from 1^st January of the next year. The grievance of the applicant is that when there is a time limit prescribed for the grant of benefit of the said Scheme, the advancement of the benefit to another date is unreasonable.

Shri Padma Kumar S., learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the issue involved in the instant case is squarely covered by a catena of decision of this Tribunal’s various Benches. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

Pursuant to notice from this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their reply. With the assistance of the counter reply, Shri Shailendra Tiwary, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the representation regarding change of date of grant of BCR from 1.7.2005 to 27.5.2005, i.e., w.e.f. the date of completion of 26 years of service by the applicant was forwarded to Directorate for necessary clarification in the matter and as per the Directorate communication No.L.No.2-2/94-PE-I dated 31.10.1995, the officials who completed 26 years of service in the grade between 2^nd January and 30^th June were eligible of benefit of BCR on 1^st July of the year and the similarly situated persons who completed 26 years between 2^nd July to 31^st December were eligible on 1^st January. The learned counsel has further submitted that in the light of the Directorate L.No.20-14/2005-SBP-II dated 6.8.2019, in pursuance of the directions of this Tribunal/Hon’ble High Court, benefit of BCR Scheme was granted to some employees w.e.f. the date of completion of 26 years instead of the crucial date i.e., 1^st January or 1^st July. Such benefit has been given only to those officials who were parties in such cases. As such the benefits of BCR Scheme is admissible to the applicant w.e.f. the crucial date only, i.e., either w.e.f. 1^st January or 1^st July as applicable in her case and not on the date of completion of 26 years of service.

In rejoinder, Shri Padma Kumar S., learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the respondents have admitted that the case of the applicant is similarly situated as those officials who approached this Tribunal earlier and they were granted the benefit of BCR Scheme with effect from the date of completion of 26 years of service, but the same has been denied to the applicant only on the ground that she was not a party in any of those cases, judgments of which were implemented by the respondents and rejection of the identical claim of the applicant is arbitrary and discriminatory as well as the same is based on clear disregard to the law laid down in a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. He has placed reliance on one of such decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors v. C. Lalitha, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 747, wherein it has been held that "Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently.” As such counsel for the applicant has submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed by this Tribunal and the applicant may be given the same treatment as was extended to similarly situated employees by the respondents.

We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and carefully perused the pleadings on record. It is an admitted position that the applicant was due to get the benefit of financial upgradation under BCR Scheme with effect from 27.5.2005, i.e., on completion of 26 years of service from the date of joining as PA. Therefore, in the instant case, the issue to be decided is whether the applicant was entitled to the benefit of BCR Scheme with effect from 27.5.2005 when she had completed 26 years of service in the cadre of PA. In this regard, the counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decisions of this Tribunal in the cases of Sri Lingaraj Singh (supra), K. Sasidharan Nair (supra), T.P. Sukumara Pilla (supra), S. Santhanaraman (supra) and also the decision of the Full Bench, Chandigarh (Circuit Sitting at Jammu) in OA No.7/JK/2003, titled Piran Dutta and others vs. Union of India and others, decided on 14.1.2005. He has further contended that the point to be decided by the Full Bench of this Tribunal in the said case was (i) whether the benefits under BCR Scheme dated 11.10.1991 (Annexure-A/1) are to be granted from the date one completes 26 years of satisfactory service or from the crucial dates of 1^st January or 1^st July, as the case may be, against each identified for upgradation from these crucial dates each year as per subsequent clarifications. The Full Bench answered the point that “the benefit under the Biennial Cadre Review Scheme dated 11.10.1991 has to be granted from the date one completes 26 years of satisfactory service.”

It is not the case of the respondents that the service rendered by the applicant is not satisfactory. Once an issue had been decided by this Tribunal’s Full Bench (supra) and subsequently the very same issue in catena of cases had been decided in favour of the applicants therein by this Tribunal (supra) and affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court(s) and Hon’ble Supreme Court, denial of the same to the applicant on the ground that benefits of BCR Scheme cannot be extended to all officials as BCR was to be given w.e.f. 1^st January and 1^st July only and not from the date of completion of 26 years of service, is not based on any intelligible differentia rather it amounts to discriminatory treatment meted out to the applicant, as it is well settled that the classification must be founded on intelligible differentia and that differentia must have a rational relation with the object sought to be achieved by the legislation, which is not the case in hand. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors v. C. Lalitha (supra) has held that "Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently.”

In view of the above facts and circumstances and for the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of BCR Scheme with effect from 27.5.2005 and therefore, there was no justification to grant her the said benefit with effect from 1.7.2005. We, therefore, quash the impugned order dated 30.8.2019 and direct the respondents to consider granting the benefit of financial upgradation under BCR Scheme in favour of the applicant on completion of 26 years of service in the cadre of PA, i.e., w.e.f. 27.5.2005 and accordingly, calculate and release the retiral benefits in favour of the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

In the result, the instant OA is allowed in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.