Secretary, Department of Post, New Delhi and others vs Smt. Mangamma

B.V. Nagarathna, J. - Petitioners have 5 assailed order dated 19/03/2015 passed by the 5 Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter, referred to as "the Tribunal", for brevity) in O.A.No. 1383/2014. By the said order, the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to pay full salary and allowances till the respondent was terminated from service in January, 2014 as well as other benefits, taking the date of termination as date of superannuation, within a period of three months time.

According to the petitioners, respondent was engaged as Part Time Casual Labourer (PTCL), for three hours only per day, as a sweeper, with effect from 07/06/1982. A scheme known as "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme" was introduced on 12/04/1991. It was clarified later that full time casual labourers engaged on or after 29/11/1989 and up to 01/09/1993 could be considered for grant of benefit under the said scheme. On 08/02/1999, respondent was converted as Full Time Casual Labourer (PTCL) due to merger of vacant posts. Respondent made a representation for consideration of her case for conferment of temporary status with effect from 25/11/1989. Her representation dated 11/11/2011 was rejected stating that she was not eligible for such conferment as she was working as FTCL with effect from 08/02/1999 onwards and not prior to that date. Being aggrieved by the rejection of her representation, she filed O.A.No.698/2012 be fore the Tribunal, seeking consideration of her case for grant of temporary status from 29/11/1989.

During the pendency of the said application, respondent was selected for appointment to the cadre of Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) on 29/12/2012 and was appointed by order dated 30/01/2013. This was b> considering her date of birth as 05/01/1960. Respondent joined as MTS w.e.f. 07/02/2013. Thereafter, the Tribunal allowed O. A.No.698/2012 by order dated 22/08/2013 and directed the petitioners herein to consider the case of the respondent. Against the said order, Review Petition No. 47/2013 was filed by the petitioners herein. Subsequently, review of promotions were made and on scrutiny of the records, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) found that the date of birth of the respondent was in the year 1953 and not in the year 1960. On the basis of the minutes dated 17/12/2013 of DPC, notice was issued to the respondent proposing to withdraw her appointment as MTS. The Tribunal dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioners herein by order dated 21/01/2014. The contempt petition tiled by the respondent was also disposed on 30/05/2014. Subsequently, by order dated 30/09/2014, the third petitioner withdrew the order of appointment of respondent as MTS, with immediate effect and she was to continue as FTCL and accordingly, she was relieved from MTS on 30/09/2014. Though respondent did not challenge the aforesaid order, she sought for terminal dues of pension and gratuity, which was rejected by the petitioners. The respondent filed O.A.No. 1383/2015 before the Tribunal, seeking grant of pension and gratuity, which was allowed by the Tribunal by impugned order dated 19/03/2015.

We have heard Sri. B. Pramod, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri. V.V. Balan, learned counsel for respondent and perused the material on record.

We find that the Tribunal has noted that, the date of birth of the respondent as 05/01/1960, which was considered by the DPC for the purpose of promotion as MTS and has opined that the review by the DPC was not warranted and that too without affording an opportunity to the respondent herein. But the fact remains that on review made by the DPC, it was found that her date of birth was in the year 1953 as per the records and on that basis, her appointment as MTS was cancelled. The effect of the cancellation of her appointment as MTS, though not challenged by her before the Tribunal, has been brushed aside by the Tribunal while granting the reliefs to the respondent. Having regard to the fact that the respondent was born in the year 1953 and having attained the age of superannuation, her selection as MTS under UR quota was withdrawn and she was reverted to the original post. On reversion, she became a full time casual labourer. The reversion not being challenged by the respondent and the fact that she was also not granted temporary status under the Scheme, question would arise as to whether the respondent was entitled to the benefits of pension and gratuity. These are the aspects which have not been considered by the Tribunal. But the Tribunal has directed the petitioners herein to pay full salary and allowance to the respondent till she retired in January, 2014 as well as her retrial benefits. The Tribunal was also not right in holding that review by the DPC was not necessary or without reason and thereby, implying that withdrawal of her selection as MTS was improper even in the absence of there being any challenge to the order of cancellation of the appointment of respondent as MTS. The aforesaid and other incidental aspects have not been considered in their proper perspective by the Tribunal, while granting relief to the respondent. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the Tribunal is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration in light of the aforesaid observations and the material on record. The writ petition is disposed in the aforesaid terms.

There is no order as to costs.