Ram Das Bharti vs Union Of India & Ors.

Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Class IV i.e. Group D (MTS) employee in the year 1980 through Departmental Examination from Extra Departmental Agent (EDA, now GDS). Thereafter, the applicant was promoted in the year 1984 on the post of Postman. He has also been promoted on the post of Postal Assistant on 17.10.1988. He has retired on/dated 31.03.2013. The applicant is aggrieved that third MACP benefit was not allowed to him by the respondents on completion of thirty years of service. He has moved several representations before the respondents for grant of third MACP but vide the impugned order dated 26.04.2018, the respondents have denied any revision in the pay and pension of the applicant with the observation that three promotions/upgradations have already been allowed to the applicant in the form of Postman, Postal Assistant and as TBOP. Thus, in the present O.A., prayer is made by the applicant to quash the impugned order and direct the respondents to grant third MACP to the applicant.

As per the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the applicant has already been allowed three promotions/upgradation. First in the form of Postman, second as Postal Assistant and third in the form of TBOP during his service and now no revision is due. It has been pleaded by the respondents that prayer made in the O.A. for grant of third MACP is not acceptable as the applicant has already been allowed three promotions. Thus, prayer was made to dismiss the O.A.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant retired from services on 31.03.2013. He has been allowed only two promotions i.e. as Postman and Postal Assistant. The third MACP due to the applicant was not allowed to him after completion of thirty years of service. Learned counsel for the applicant also referred to the Annexure No.6 of the O.A. and further argued that the respondents themselves have issued an office order dated 25.08.2017 granting third MACP to the applicant with effect from 03.02.2011 but the same has not been implemented. Thus, argued to allow the O.A. to direct the respondents to grant the benefit of third MACP.

Learned counsel for the respondents argued that since the applicant has been allowed three promotions as indicated in the counter affidavit, and the TBOP allowed in the year 2017 w.e.f. 03.02.2011 has also been implemented extending the benefit to the applicant by revising his LPC and Service Book as would be clear from Annexure no. CA-6, thus, there is no merit in the O.A.

I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record.

Admittedly, the applicant himself has disclosed in the O.A. that he was absorbed in the department in the year 1980 as a Group ‘D’ employee after his initial engagement as EDA. Thereafter, he was given promotion as Postman in 1984 as would be clear from the facts disclosed in paragraph no.4.3 of the O.A.. After that, as per paragraph 4..4, he was promoted as Postal Assistant in the year 1988 and was allowed to work on the post after the required training. The respondents’ stand is that the applicant was promoted to the post of Postman, thereafter, he obtained promotion as Postal Assistant and he has also been allowed one TBOP (financial upgradation). In this way, the respondents have counted the three promotions allowed to the applicant observing that no further revision is required in the pension of the applicant. If the facts disclosed hereinabove and pleaded in the O.A. as well as the counter affidavit are compared with each other, it becomes clear that the applicant himself has disclosed that he was firstly promoted to the post of Postman in the year 1984 from the group ‘D’ post. Thereafter, in the year 1988, he was promoted to the post of Postal Assistant. The document annexed by the respondents as Annexure CA-6 of the counter affidavit establishes that in the year 2017, TBOP benefit was allowed to the applicant with effect from 03.02.2011. If the aforesaid facts are taken into consideration, then three promotions/upgradations have already been allowed to the applicant. Thus, there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order denying any further benefit to the applicant. Annexure no.6 of the O.A. which is the letter dated 25.08.2017 issued by the respondents department also clearly shows that the third financial upgradation has been allowed to the applicant w.e.f. 03.02.2011 which is said to be implemented through the orders annexed as CA-6 of the Counter affidavit. The applicant had already retired on 31.03.2013. In such as situation, the respondents are hereby directed to ensure that if the said benefit of third financial upgradation allowed to the applicant vide order dated 25.08.2017 (Annexure no.6 of the O.A.) has still not been extended to the applicant, the same may be implemented and the benefit may be extended to the applicant within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

The O.A. stands disposed of with above directions. All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.