Sri. Gurunath Akkanna & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors.

PER: MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

The applicants have filed this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

The facts in brief as narrated by the applicants are that they were selected for the post of Postal Assistant vide Memo dated 04.06.1983 and were deputed for postal training at Postal Training Centre. The applicants were utilized as short duty Postal Assistant, after training they were performing regular duties of regular Postal Assistant from 3/5.12.1983. The applicants were appointed as Postal Assistant from 12.09.1987. Placing reliance on the order of the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal dated 15.04.2015 in OA No.779/2013 and OA No.780/2013, which has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana and further by the Hon’ble Apex Court, applicants claim that they are entitled for similar relief for counting of their service as Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) service as regular service from 06.09.1983 to 11.09.1987 and to grant financial upgradation of MACP. The representations submitted by them in this regard has been rejected by the authorities vide order dated 19.03.2025. Being aggrieved, the applicants have filed this OA.

Learned Counsel Shri P. Kamalesan representing the applicants submitted that after training, the applicants were engaged as short duty Postal Assistant from 1983 to 1987, where the applicants were performing similar work as performed by regular Postal Assistants. They were appointed as Postal Assistant from 12.09.1987. After judicial verdicts, the employees were granted financial upgradations such as TBOP by counting their earlier service but denying the benefits of financial upgradations under MACP scheme. However, in the OAs No.779/2013 and 780/2013 filed by the Postal employees before the CAT, Hyderabad Bench, the OAs were allowed granting the reliefs. The respondents challenged the said order before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in W.P.No.17400/2016 and 17425/2016, which were dismissed on 27.02.2023. The said order was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.1868/2024, which was dismissed vide order dated 05.02.2024. Hence the issue has reached finality. The respondents issued orders for implementation of the verdict of CAT, Hyderabad Bench. The representations submitted by the applicants to extend similar reliefs to them has been rejected on flimsy grounds. Hence seeks for the reliefs claimed.

Learned Counsel Shri Vishnu Bhat representing the respondents submitted that the applicants were selected as Reserve Trained Pool cadre vide order dated 03.09.1983 with a direction to utilize their services as short duty staff on hourly rates of wages at the rate of Rs.2.75/- per hour against the vacancies due to absenteeism, besides for handling peak hour traffic subject to maximum of six hours per day. Accordingly, applicants worked at Humnabad HO as short duty staff under RTP TS PA cadre. RTP scheme did not envisage any right for counting RTP service rendered prior to regular appointment for any purpose. The applicants were appointed as regular Temporary Status Postal Assistants with effect from 12.09.1987 and their regular service commenced from that date, in the grade of 975-1660 and posted as Postal Assistants, Bidar HO. The applicants had filed OA No.744/2016 before this Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to count RTP service for grant of financial upgradation under TBOP scheme and to extend the consequential benefits. While disposing the OA, this Tribunal vide order dated 20.01.2017 had directed the Postmaster General, N.K. Region, Dharwad to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders. Considering the representation their claims were rejected vide order dated 17.05.2017. Being aggrieved the applicants preferred OA No.442/2017, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 23.07.2018 placing reliance on the order of the Ernakulam Bench in OA No.79/2011 and connected cases, in similar terms. As per the said order, the applicants are eligible for counting their RTP period for the purpose of benefits of TBOP only not for MACP benefits. Accordingly, benefit of TBOP was extended to the applicants for the period of service rendered under RTP and the date of TBOP was preponed. Meanwhile, the applicants preferred RA No.76/2019 before this Tribunal for review of the order dated 23.07.2018 in OA No.442/2017 with a prayer to extend the benefits of MACP as per the orders of the Ernakulam Bench in OA No.79/2011. Aggrieved by the orders of RA No.76/2019, the Department filed Writ Petition No.200216/2021 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburgi Bench. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka vide order dated 08.07.2021 observing that, since it is a consent order, it is not open for the petitioners therein – respondents herein to challenge the same. However, it is open for the respondents herein, to seek appropriate remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal itself. The respondents herein have preferred R.P.No.200001/2022 in the said Writ Petition and the same is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburgi Bench.

Learned Counsel referring to the order of the Ernakulam Bench in OA No.79/2011 and connected matters submitted that in terms of the order passed by this Tribunal in applicants’ case in OA No.442/2017 read with Review Application No.76/2019, the applicants are not entitled for MACP benefits. The same having reached finality, no further cause of action would arise to the applicants to file this fresh OA after suffering the order. Hence seeks for dismissal of the OA.

We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

At the outset, it is significant to note that the applicants have filed OA No.05/2023 (Mallikarjun Vakare vs. UOI and others) and OA No.06/2023 (Gurunath Akkanna vs. UOI and others) before this Tribunal seeking for the following reliefs:

Despite the same, this OA is filed by the applicants jointly seeking for the reliefs as stated supra. Nowhere in the OA pleadings, filing of the earlier OAs (OA No.05/2023 and 06/2023) and the pendency of the same before this Tribunal is stated. On the other hand it has been declared that the applicants have not previously filed any applications in respect of which this application has been made and no such application, writ petition or suit is pending before any court of law or other authority or any Bench of this Tribunal. Filing of multiple applications through different learned Counsel suppressing the material facts of the pendency of earlier OAs before this Bench is highly deprecative. Noticing the common reliefs claimed by the applicants in two sets of OAs, the matters are clubbed and today learned Counsel, Shri A.R.Holla appearing for applicants in those OAs (OAs No.05/2023 and 06/2023), has filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the said OAs. Accordingly, OAs No.05/2023 and 06/2023 are dismissed today as withdrawn.

Indisputedly, the applicants had preferred OA No. 744/2016 before this Tribunal which was disposed of vide order dated 20.01.2017 directing the Post Master General, N.K.Region, Dharwad to consider the representations submitted by the applicant and pass appropriate orders within the time frame fixed. Accordingly, the order dated 17.05.2017 was issued by the 3^rd Respondent rejecting the claim of the applicants for counting the RTP service for all purpose. Again the applicants preferred OA No.442/2017, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 23.07.2018 holding that the Ernakulam Bench decision in OA No.79/2011 and connected matters, will be followed in the case of the applicants also. In RA No.76/2019 filed by the applicants, this Tribunal vide order dated 05.03.2020 modified the order to provide for grant of MACP benefits to the applicants as per the orders of the Ernakulam Bench supra. On a careful reading of the Ernakulam Bench decision supra, it is evident that in so far as MACP is concerned, the period of service shall be reckoned only from the date of regular service disregarding the services rendered prior to regularization. It has been specifically clarified that in so far as MACP is concerned, the period of 20 years for 2^nd MACP shall be reckoned only from the date of regular appointment and those who are entitled to 2^nd MACP financial benefits accordingly shall be afforded the same, if not already done. Since TBOP benefits were allowed by the Ernakulam Bench denying the MACP benefits, counting the RTP service rendered by the applicants, the same was extended to the applicants by order dated 07.11.2019 with effect from 10.09.1999 in compliance with the order of this Tribunal in OA No.442/2017. That being the position, merely for the reason that subsequently some of the employees have preferred OAs before the Hyderabad Bench seeking identical reliefs and the same have been allowed, confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana and SLP preferred against the said order being dismissed (Diary No.1868/2024, DD:05.02.2024), no fresh application is maintainable. It is well settled that a subsequent decision or changing the law by a superior court reversing an earlier legal position, is not a valid ground to file even a review petition. Reliance on a later favourable judgment in a different case is not permissible in order to protect the finality concluded legal decisions and prevent needless litigation whenever a precedent changes. As such filing of fresh OA on the concluded issues between the parties is not maintainable. Doctrine of res-judicata applies.

For the reasons aforesaid, OA is bereft of merit and deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, OA stands dismissed, however, subject to R.P.No.200001/2022 in W.P.No.200216/2021 pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburgi Bench.

No order as to costs.