AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeks the following reliefs:
“i.To quash the memo No. STA/4-4/CAT/V, dated @ Bengaluru-560 001, the 22.05.2024 issued by respondent No. 2 vide Annexure-A14.
ii.Direct the respondents to extend the benefit of promotion to the applicant from 01.06.2019 on par with his junior official and extend consequential benefits accordingly and
iii.Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The applicant has sought the aforementioned reliefs on the grounds set out in paragraph 5 of the application, as detailed below:
“i)The applicant is seeking promotion to the post of HSG-I NFG w.e.f 01.06.2019 on par with Smt. L.Lalitha. The applicant is senior to Smt. L. Lalitha all along and both were getting the pay of Rs. 17,790/- and Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- as on 01.07.2015. Thereafter, their pay was fixed at Rs. 58,600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2016 (7th CPC). The pay of the applicant and Smt. L. Lalitha was Rs. 64,100/- as on 01.07.2018. However, Smt. L. Lalitha was granted Higher selection Grade-I Non Functional Gazetted with effect from 01.06.2019, raising her pay to Rs. 68,000/- however the applicant remained with pay of Rs. 66,000/- only. Subsequently the applicant was given promotion to the post of HSG-I w.e.f. 09.06.2015 by an Order dated 01.06.2020 (Annexure-A6). However, he was not granted HSG-I NFG promotion on par with his junior w.e.f. 01.06.2019. It is submitted that the applicant is entitled to get the benefit of HSG-I NFG promotion on par with his junior w.e.f. 01.06.2019. The Respondents are liable to be directed to extend the said benefit to the applicant.
ii) The Supreme Court has held in the case of Union of India and others Vs. K.G. Rojaria reported in ASLJ 2000(3) Page 276 that a senior employee is eligible to get the service benefits on par with his junior considering his notional service also. Having regard to the same the applicant is entitled to HSG-1 NFG w.e.f. 01.06.2019 including consequential benefits.
iii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2272/2000, dated 28.03.2000 between Union of India Vs. K.B. Rojaria has laid down the law that when a junior is extended the benefit of promotion it necessarily follows that the junior employee should also get the same. The copy of the same is herewith produced as Annexure A-11. Regular service does not mean actual service, it may include notional service also.
iv) The respondents have taken erroneous stand that the applicant has retired on 31.07.2020 and hence he is not entitled to the benefit as he has not completed two years of actual service after he got HSG-1 promotion. The view taken by the respondent is contrary to the order of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
v)Because of the inordinate delay i.e., more than 1 year in taking a decision to lift the status quo order dated 24.06.2019 to promote the senior HSG 1 officials, the Applicant has been deprived of getting his due promotion. The order to remove the status quo made on 05.08.2020.”
The succinct facts of the case, as set out by the applicant in the synopsis, are as follows:
“ The applicant joined the Department of posts as time scale clerk, (subsequently designated as Postal Assistant) on 20.08.1979, He got his promotions of LSG, HSG-II and HSG I and retired on 31.07.2020 on superannuation. The applicant represented on 05.11.2019 to the concerned authority for stepping up of his pay on par with his junior Smt. L. Lalitha, whose basic pay at the time of retirement was Rs. 70,000/- whereas the applicant's was Rs. 68,000/- difference of one increment. The authority concerned turned down the request of the applicant on 24.03.2021 and refused to promote/ step up of pay of the applicant on par with that of junior and the same was communicated to the applicant. The applicant has filed an OA in Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore under number OA/526/2021, to quash the memo dated 24.03.2021, Annexure-A4 and A5 of same date and to direct the Respondents to extend the benefit of promotion to the applicant from 01.06.2019 on par with his junior official and extend consequential benefits accordingly. The Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore allowed the said OA on 09.08.2023 and directed the Respondents to consider the claim of the Applicant. The Applicant had given a representation along with the copy of the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal on 28.08.2023, requesting to step up his pay on par with his junior in accordance with the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal. But the Respondents declined to consider.
The applicant has filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 challenging the Order dated 24.03.2021 and seeking consequential relief.”
Upon notice, the respondents filed their reply statement. No rejoinder was filed by the applicant.
The matter was taken up for final hearing on 24.09.2026. The applicant, Shri Javarayi Gowda, appeared in person along with Advocate Shri P. Ravindra, and Shri S. Prakash Shetty appeared on behalf of the respondents. Both parties were heard at length.
We have carefully perused the pleadings, examined the material on record, and considered the rival contentions of the parties.
From a perusal of the facts placed before us and argued by the parties, the core underlying factual background remains largely undisputed.
It is apposite to examine the impugned order dated 22.05.2024 bearing No. STA/4-4/CAT/V (Annexure–A14), which sets out the largely undisputed chronological facts of the case as follows:
“ This is regarding implementation of orders of Hon'ble CAT, Bengaluru Bench dated 24th August 2023 in connection with OA no. 170/00526/2021 filed by Sri Javarayigowda, Retired Postmaster (HSG-I) in connection with stepping up of pay with the Junior official.
Brief History of the case
1.Sri Javarayi Gowda, Retd. Postmaster, HAL IInd Stage HO will be hereinafter termed as "Applicant".
2.Applicant was appointed in the Department as a Time Scale clerk (redesignated as Postal Assistant) on 20-08-1979. He was promoted to LSG cadre and joined as LSG on 20-04-2007. A separate Postmaster grade(PM Grade, for short) was constituted during 2011 and the General Line (LSG) officials were given an option to opt for Postmaster Cadre or General Line. The applicant opted for Postmaster Cadre and was posted as Postmaster Grade | where as Smt. L Lalitha opted for General Line and continued as LSG. Both the Applicant and Smt. L Lalitha continued in the service in their respective cadres and were promoted as per the existing provisions for the cadres concerned until the PM Grade and General Line was merged vide Postal Directorate New Delhi letter no. 25-19/2018-PE.I dated 10-07-2019.
3.Applicant retired from service on Superannuation w.e.f 31-07-2020. Applicant's case for granting HSG - I(NFG) could not be considered as there were no vacant posts and he retired on superannuation when 23 posts of HSG I(NFG) were temporarily redeployed to Karnataka Circle vide Q-25/2/2020-PE-I dated 05-08-2020 as per the request of the circle as a welfare measure.
4.Applicant vide his letter dated 10-09-2020 represented requesting for promotion to NFG on par with the other officials comparing them as junior to him. The said representation of the applicant was forwarded by PMG, Bengaluru HQ region to Circle Office vide letter no. BGR/STAT/1-17/HSG-I(NFG)/2016-17/CR dated 17-09-2020. In reply, Circle Office vide letter no. STA/1-17/HSG-I/Repn. Dated 15-03-2021 replied to BG RO informing that "...the applicant had opted for PM Grade whereas Smt. Lalitha remained in General Line. Further, the applicant was given notional promotion in HSG-II cadre w.e.f.09.12.2011 on merger of PM grade and General Line. After cadre re-structuring, HSG-1 (NFG) was created and 13 posts were identified for Karnataka Circle which were filled by constituting DPC. Consequent on merger of PM Grade and General line, it was observed that senior officials belonging to erstwhile PM Grade-III were not granted HSG-I (NEG) whereas their juniors in General-line were granted-HSG (NFG). Further, Directorate vide letter no.X-3/3/2019-SPN II dated 24.06.2019 ordered 40 maintain status quo until further orders which was lifted vide Dte. Letter no.Q-25/2/2020/PE-1 dated 05.08.2020 and re-deployed 23 HSG-I (NFG) posts temporarily from other Circles to accommodate those senior erstwhile PM Grade III officials whose juniors in General line were granted HSG-I (NFG). However, by the time of temporary redeployment of said posts from other circles, the applicant retired from service on superannuation w.e.f.31.07.2020. Hence, the applicant could not be promoted to HSG-I (NFG)...".
5.The same was conveyed to the SSPOs, Bengaluru East division by the PMG BG RO vide letter no.BGR/STAT/1-17/HSG-I (NFG)/2016-17/CR dated 18.03.2021 and asked to inform the same to the applicant. Accordingly, the SSPOS, BG East vide letter no.B2/2-97A/2021 dated 24.03.2021 replied to the applicant intimating the same.
6.The applicant, vide his letter dated 28.10.2020 requested for stepping up of pay on par with Smt.L Lalitha. The matter was referred by SSPOs, BG East to the BG RO. In response, the BG RO vide letter no.BGR/AP/32-1/Digs dated 19.03.2021 replied to the SSPOs stating that, the request for stepping up of pay of the applicant on par with Smt. L Lalitha is not admissible as the case is not in the line with the guidelines for stepping up of pay and also that the applicant was promoted to HSG-I notionally w.e.f.09.06.2015 whereas the actual promotion was w.e.f.01.06.2020. The applicant was intimated accordingly by the Respondent No.4 vide letter no. B2/2-30/III/2021 dated 24.03.2021.
7.Aggrieved with the said replies of the Senior Superintendent Post Offices, Bengaluru East Dvn vide letters no. B2/2-97A/2021 dated 24.03.2021 and No.B2/2-30/III/2021 dated 24.03.2021, the applicant filed OA No.170/526/2021 before Hon'ble CAT Bengaluru seeking relief on the following lines:-
a. to quash the memo No.B2/2-30/III/2021 dated 24.03.2021 issued by the Respondent vide Annexure-A4 and Memo No.B2/2-97A/2021 dated 24.03.2021 issued by the Respondent vide Annexure-A5.
b. Direct the Respondents to extend the benefit of promotion to the applicant from 01.06.2019 on par with his junior official and extend consequential benefits accordingly and
c. Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
8.Reply statement to the OA was filed by the Office of Postmaster General, Bengaluru HQ Region (Respondent no.3) on 29-03-2022 seeking the dismissal of the OA.
9.Applicant filed a rejoinder to the Reply filed by Office of PMG, Bengaluru HQ region i.e. Respondent no. 3 on 13-07-2022 re-iterating his grounds. Statement of Additional reply was filed by Respondent no. 3 on 23-09-2022 to the Rejoinder. A Miscellaneous Application also was filed by Respondent no.3 on 28-11-2022 to file the Additional Reply to the Rejoinder. Miscellaneous application was allowed by the Hon'ble CAT, Bengaluru on 16-02-2023.
10.Hon'ble CAT, Bengaluru delivered the judgement on 09-08-2023 as follows:-
a. It would be therefore appropriate for the respondents to re-consider the request/claim of the applicant keeping in mind the order passed by the Karnataka Circle letter dated 05-08-2020 vide which the 23 posts had been transferred to Karnataka Circle
b. Accordingly, the OA is disposed off. Annexure A-4 and A-5 are set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondents to re-consider the request/claim of the applicant keeping in mind the order passed by the Karnataka Circle vide Directorate letter no. Q-25/2/2020-PE-I dated 05-08-2020.
As per the orders of the Hon'ble CAT, the request/claim of the applicant was Re-considered.
Gist of Representations from Applicant addressed to this office:-
Representation dated 15-06-2020:-
That he has been promoted as HSG - 1 Postmaster notionally from 09-06-2015 vide CO Memo no. STA/1-17/HSG-I/Merger dated 11-05-2020 and he has joined as Postmaster HSG I at HAL 2nd Stage HO on 01-06-2020. That he stands senior than Smt.Lalitha. DPM HSG I NFG Basavanagudi HO and eligible for another promotion of NFG since the criteria of minimum two years of service in HSG I is fulfilled (HSG I from 09-06-2015). That his promotion to NFG at par with junior official Smt. Lalitha to be considered. He addressed another letter dated 07-07-2020 on the same subject.
Representations dated 10-09-2020 and 28-10-2020
Vide his representations above he requested for considering his plea either by promoting to NFG at par with junior official Smt. L Lalitha or stepping up of pay to next level at par with the above official, whose basic pay was Rs.70,000 and his basic pay was Rs.68,000.
The case is analysed as follows:-
NFG PROMOTION
i.Service particulars of Applicant and Smt. L.Lalitha are analysed as below:-
Applicant (Opted Postmaster Cadre) Smt. Lalitha L (Opted General line cadre) Date of birth 23-07-1960 16-07-1960 Pay in Rs. Pay in Rs. Date of Entry as Postal Assistant 20-08-1979 260 20-08-1979 260 TBOP 25-08-1995 1480 24-08-1995 1480 BCR 01-01-2006 11580+4200 01-01-2006 11580+4200 LSG 20-04-2007 12060+4200 20-04-2007 12060+4200 MACP III 14-09-2009 14120+4600 08-09-2009 14120+4600 PM Gr I 25-04-2011 14960+4600 NA NA HSG II NA NA 18-02-2012 15270+4600 PM Gr II 22-10-2014 17130+4600 NA NA HSG I NA NA 13-06-2015 17790+4600 Pay as on 01-07-2015 17790+4600 17790+4600 VII CPC fixation 01-01-2016 58600 01-01-2016 58600 Pay as on 01-07-2018 64100 64100 HSG I NFG Not in General Line 01-06-2019 66000 Pay as on 01-07-2019 68000 HSG I 01-06-2020 68000 NA NA Last pay drawn on Superannuation 31-07-2020 68000 31-07-2020 70000 Flow Chart of Promotion
Postmaster Cadre General Cadre Grade I LSG Grade II HSG II Grade III HSG I No further promotion HSG I NFG i.The applicant was appointed in the Department as Time Scale Clerk (Re-designated as Postal Assistant) on 20.08.1979. He was promoted to LSG and joined as LSG on 20.04.2007. A separate Postmaster Grade was constituted during 2011 and the officials were given an option to opt for Postmaster Grade or General Line. Applicant opted for Postmaster cadre and was posted as Postmaster Grade I.
ii.Whereas Smt. L Lalitha opted for General Line and continued as LSG. The officials continued in their respective cadre and were promoted as per existing provisions for that cadre until Postmaster Grade and General Line were merged vide Directorate letter no. 25-19/2018-P.E-I dated 10.07.2019. At the time of granting NFG promotion to Smt.L Lalitha on 01-06-2019, case of applicant was not considered as he was still in Postmaster Cadre wherein there was no provision for NFG Promotion.
iii.Smt. Lalitha was promoted to HSG I NFG cadre w.e.f 01-06-2019 as she opted for General cadre as against the applicant opted for Postmaster Grade cadre. At the time of granting promotion to Smt.Lalitha, the Postmaster Grade and General line were two different cadres. As the applicant was in Postmaster cadre he was not granted HSG I NFG Cadre.
iv.Consequent on merger of PM Grade with General line and fixation of combined seniority vide Directorate letter no. 25-19/2018-PE-I dated 10-07-2019, it was observed that many erstwhile PM Grade-III officials (now HSG I after merger) are senior to the officials in HSG-I Grade who have been appointed as HSG-I (NFG). However, Circles did not have sufficient HSG-I (NFG) posts to accommodate these senior officials. In order to avoid any such situation, Postal Directorate vide letter no. X-3/3/2019-SPN-II dated 24.06.2019 ordered to maintain "status quo" in the matter till further orders from Directorate. Hence, HSG-I (NFG) could not be granted to anyone from that date.
v.Karnataka Postal Circle as a Welfare measure, requested Directorate for redeployment of HSG I NFG Posts from other Circles as a result of which Postal Directorate vide letter no. Q-25/2/2020-PE-I dated 05.08.2020 temporarily redeployed 23 posts of HSG I (NFG) from other circles to Karnataka Circle so as to accommodate the senior HSG I officials (erstwhile PM Grade III officials), whose juniors have been appointed to the post of HSG I (NFG) and accordingly Postal Directorate vide letter no. X-1-3/2019-SPN-II(Part-I) dated 10.08.2020 lifted status quo on filling up of posts of HSG I (NFG). When the applicant had submitted representations on 05.11.2019, 15.06.2020, & 07.07.2020, "status quo” was maintained in the light of instructions issued by Postal Directorate as stated above and his case could not be considered for promotion.
i.However, when the condition of status quo was lifted on 10.08.2020, the applicant had already retired and as such the applicant could not be granted HSG I (NFG). Thus, applicant is not eligible to be promoted as HSG I (NFG).
STEPPING UP OF PAY
The Conditions for Stepping up of Pay as per FR 22(22) - (ОМ по. F2 (78)-E.III(A)/66 dated 4th February 1966) are
i.As per the Proviso of Note 10 below Rule 7 of CCS(RP) Rules 2016, in cases where a Government servant promoted to a higher post before the 1st day of January 2016 draws less pay in the revised pay structure than his junior who is promoted to the higher post on or after the 1st day of January 2016, the pay of the senior Government servant in the revised pay structure shall be stepped up to an amount equal to the pay as fixed for his junior in that higher post and such stepping up shall be done with effect from the date of promotion of the junior Government servant subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions:-
a. Both the junior and senior Government employees should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical in the same cadre.
b. The existing pay structure and the revised pay structure of the lower and higher posts in which they in which they are entitled to draw pay are identical
c. The Senior Government employees at the time of promotion should have been drawing equal or more pay than the junior
d. The anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of the provisions of FR 22 or any other rule or order regulating pay fixation on such promotion in the revised pay structure.
In the instant case:-
i.The applicant opted for PM Grade and was posted as Postmaster Grade I whereas Smt. L Lalitha continued in General line and worked as LSG i.e. comparison is being made between the pay drawn in two different posts. The junor started drawing higher pay than the senior due to junior's promotion to the grade HSG -I(NFG), where as the senior was in HSG-I(notionally). Hence, the senior or junior are not in identical post on the date of comparison. Therefore the anomaly is not directly as a result of the application of FR 22.
ii.Both the cadres viz a viz, PM Grade and General Line had different promotional avenues and Smt. L Lalitha was promoted to HSG II w.e.f 17-01-2012 whereas the applicant was promoted to PM Grade II w.e.f 22-10-2014 as per the then existing vacancies in their respective cadres. Accordingly their pay was fixed and hence there was a difference in pay due to their different dates in promotion to next higher grade. This difference in pay continued till the end and as such this difference in pay did not occur when they were holding same posts (LSG before constitution of PM Grade in 2011).
iii.The seniority of the officials has been strictly fixed in accordance with Directorate letter no. X-1-3/2019-SPN-II dated 26.07.2019. Vide para 3 (i) (c), 3 (ii) (c) and 3 (iii) (c) of Directorate letter X-1-3/2019-SPN-II dated 26.07.2019 it is clearly elucidated that notional date shall be for the purpose of seniority only and shall have no effect on pay of the employee. No instructions have been received from Directorate regarding fixation of pay based on seniority of the official as claimed.
iv.Hon'ble Supreme Court order is regarding extending the benefit of promotion to senior when junior is being promoted and not related to fixation of pay.
v.As regards the stepping up of pay of the applicant on par with Smt.Lalitha is concerned, it is submitted that Smt. Lalitha was actually promoted to HSG-I cadre w.e.f.13.06.2015 whereas the applicant actually promoted to HSG-I cadre w.e.f.01.06.2020. Also, it is submitted that though the applicant was promoted to HSG-I cadre notionally w.e.f.09.06.2015, the actual promotion to HSG-I cadre was w.e.f.01.06.2020. Further, as per the instructions of Postal Directorate vide letter No.X-1/3/2019-SPN-II dated 26.07.2019, the date of notional promotion shall be for the purpose of seniority only and shall have no effect on pay. Due these conditions, the stepping of the pay of the applicant on par with Smt. Lalitha is not admissible.
Accordingly, in compliance with the orders of the Hon'ble CAT, Bengaluru Bench dated 09.08.2023, the representation of the applicant was considered and stands disposed of.”
A closer examination reveals that the impugned order was passed purportedly in compliance with the order of this Tribunal dated 09.08.2023 in OA No. 526/2021 (Annexure–A13), the relevant portion of which reads as under:
“6.In the present case, the applicant is praying for pay parity with his junior Smt. L. Lalitha who has been granted HSG-I NFG Grade. He has also prayed for grant of NFG Grade to him on par with that of Smt. L. Lalitha, who was supposedly junior to him in the cadre of Lower Selection Grade, as is evident from the seniority list published on 30.3.2007 (Annexure A-10).
7.The applicant had switched over to the Postmaster cadre, and had also got his promotion as Post Master Grade-II on 22.10.2014. Subsequent to abolishing of Postmaster cadre and its merger with General line cadre on 26.7.2019, the applicant got his HSG-I promotion notionally on 09.6.2015 vide order dated 11.5.2020. Smt. L. Lalitha had got her promotion as HSGI on 13.6.2015. Hence, she was junior to the applicant in HSG-I grade as well. She got her NFG grade after completion of 2 years as HSG-I w.e.f. 1.6.2019. However, the applicant was not granted NFG grade on par with Smt. Lalitha. This has resulted in the pay anomaly with the junior getting higher pay than the applicant.
8.As is evident from the pleadings of the respondents, NFG scale was not granted to the applicant due to non-availability of posts at the level of HSGI NFG. The respondents have stated that 23 posts of HSG-I (NFG) from other circles were temporarily redeployed to Karnataka circle on 5.8.2020 so as to accommodate the senior HSG-I officials (erstwhile PM Grade III officials), whose juniors had been promoted to the post of HGS-I (NFG). However, by the time of this temporary redeployment of 23 posts, the applicant had retired on superannuation on 31.7.2020.
9.It is apparent that if the redeployment of these 23 posts in NFG grade had occurred prior to the date of superannuation of the applicant, he could have been considered for grant of NFG grade on par with her junior Smt. Lalitha.
10.The delay in redeployment of 23 posts to the Karnataka Circle has adversely affected the applicant resulting in non-consideration of his claim for grant of NFG grade prior to his superannuation. This delay is not attributable to the applicant. It was the duty of the respondents to ensure timely transfer of posts at NFG level to accommodate the claim of the applicant for being considered for grant of NFG grade before his superannuation, at par with his junior.
11.It would be therefore appropriate for the respondents to re-consider the request /claim of the applicant keeping in mind the order passed by the Karnataka Circle letter dated 05.8.2020 vide which the 23 posts had been transferred to Karnataka circle.
12.Accordingly, the OA is disposed of. Annexure A-4 and A-5 are set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondents to re-consider the request/claim of the applicant keeping in mind the order passed by the Karnataka Circle vide Director letter no.Q-25/2/2020-PE-1 dated 05.8.2020.
13.Compliance shall be made in an expedite manner, in any event not later than twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
14.However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.”
In view of the above background, the primary issues that arise for our consideration are: a) Whether the impugned order dated 22.05.2024 bearing No. STA/4-4/CAT/V (Annexure–A14) complies in letter and spirit with the earlier order passed by this Tribunal on 09.08.2023 in OA No. 526/2021? b) If so, what orders are required to be passed?
To properly evaluate the validity of the impugned order, it is necessary to re-visit the observations in this Tribunal's earlier order dated 09.08.2023 in OA No. 526/2021, which remained unchallenged and has thus attained finality. In that order, this Tribunal categorically observed that had the redeployment of the 23 NFG posts occurred prior to the applicant’s superannuation, he would have been considered for the grant of NFG promotion on par with his junior, Smt. L. Lalitha. The Tribunal held that the delay in redeploying those 23 posts to Karnataka Circle adversely affected the applicant, causing his claim to go unconsidered prior to retirement, and that such administrative delay was in no way attributable to him. The Tribunal affirmed that it was the duty of the respondents to ensure timely deployment of NFG posts to accommodate the applicant's claim for parity with his junior. Consequently, the respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant's claim keeping in mind the Directorate's letter dated 05.08.2020 whereby the 23 posts were transferred to Karnataka Circle.
Examining the impugned order in the light of these conclusive findings, it becomes evident that the respondents have repeatedly advanced varying, piecemeal justifications at different stages to deny the applicant promotion to the HSG-I (NFG) grade and pay parity with his junior.
Initially, the respondents contended that although the applicant was granted notional promotion to the HSG-I grade with effect from 09.06.2015 (on par with his junior Smt. L. Lalitha, who was promoted on 13.06.2015), this order was issued only in 2020 post-cadre merger. They asserted that he did not satisfy the requisite actual residency period in the feeder cadre and was thus ineligible for further promotion.
Subsequently, the respondents argued that no posts in the HSG-I (NFG) cadre were available within Karnataka Circle and that promotion could not be granted owing to an operational status quo order.
Further, the respondents took the stand that because the redeployment orders for the HSG-I (NFG) posts were received only after the applicant’s superannuation on 31.07.2020, no post-retirement promotion could be granted. They asserted that any such promotion would be purely notional and ineffective, since existing rules mandate that an official must actually assume charge of the higher post to earn higher pay and revised pensionary benefits.
Furthermore, when the applicant sought stepping up of pay to match his junior, Smt. L. Lalitha—whose junior status relative to the applicant prior to the 2010 cadre bifurcation as well as post-2019 cadre merger is undisputed—the respondents turned down his claim. They contended that Smt. L. Lalitha secured promotion to HSG-I (NFG) while operating in a distinct General Line cadre prior to the merger, and that such an independent promotion in a separate cadre did not attract the rules governing stepping up of pay for senior officials.
Given these shifting and multifaceted defenses advanced by the respondents, it is crucial to analyze the administrative policy orders governing both the 2010 cadre bifurcation and the subsequent 2019 cadre re-merger, along with their underlying legal purport and consequences. The initial bifurcation creating a separate Postmaster Cadre was issued vide Circular No. 4-17/2008-SPB-II dated 22.11.2010 (Annexure–R2), which inter alia reads as follows:
“ I am directed to say that Department of Posts operates mainly through its about 25500 Departmental Post Offices. The services it offers have grown in the traditional areas of sale of stamps, booking of Money orders and Registered letters as also in Savings Bank functions, especially where Post Offices disburse NREGA wages to beneficiaries. In many post offices these activities are carried out electronically, new services like e-payment, e-post etc is also offered. Further the Department has also entered into agreements with private players like Western Union for money transfers. In the area of mail, both express, parcel and traditional, the Department of Posts faces tremendous competition. It has to offer excellent services by way of continuous upgrades in quality and in the add on value of its mail products, like IOD, national billing, same day delivery of corporate mail etc. 2. In spite of the long existence of the Post Offices and challenges being faced by the Department from private players in the field there had never been an exclusive cadre for Postmasters. The Postal Assistants, LSG/HSG-II, I etc. are posted to man the posts of Postmasters. This system served the Department quite well till some time back. But now in order to improve/upgrade the functioning of the Post Offices, meet the present day requirement of specialization in Postal office management in the wake of introduction of technology, challenges from market and to increase productivity it has absolutely become essential to ensure that key Post Offices are headed by professional managers. Thus, in order to ensure that professionally qualified, trained and meritorious officials head the key Post Offices, it has been decided to introduce a separate cadre of Postmasters comprising the following grades by carving out the posts from existing General Line posts as ordered vide this Directorates letter No. 13-2/2010-PE-I dt 03.02.2010
I. Senior Postmaster 116 Posts (Rs.9300-34800 + Rs.4800 Gr Pay)
II. Postmaster Gr-III 495 Posts (Rs.9300-34800 + Rs.4600 Gr Pay)
III. Postmaster Gr-II 511 Posts (Rs.9300-34800 + 4200 Gr Pay)
IV. Postmaster Gr-I 2097 Posts (Rs.5200-20200 + Rs. 2800 Gr Pay)”
A plain reading of the 2010 circular reveals that with the expansion and diversification of postal services, the Department sought to establish a specialized, professionalized cadre of Postmasters to head key post offices. The circular envisioned a separate hierarchy for qualified and trained officials, implicitly promising structured operational growth and promotional avenues. Options were accordingly called, separating the Postmaster Cadre (comprising Postmaster Grade-I, Grade-II, Grade-III, and Senior Postmaster) from the General Line (comprising LSG, HSG-II, and HSG-I). Crucially, at the time of bifurcation, the non-functional grade of HSG-I (NFG) was not even in contemplation. In their reply, the respondents have illustrated the comparative cadre structures as follows:
| Postmaster Cadre | General Cadre |
|---|---|
| Grade I | LSG |
| Grade II | HSG II |
| Grade III | HSG I |
| Senior Postmaster | HSG I NFG |
The respondents contend that the career progressions of both the applicant and Smt. L. Lalitha within their respective streams were strictly in accord with prevailing rules. However, this assertion overlooks the reasonable expectations generated by the original bifurcation order dated 22.11.2010 (Annexure–R2). When options were exercised, officials choosing the Postmaster Cadre reasonably anticipated superior or at least equitable career advancement within a four-tier structure, especially since HSG-I (NFG) did not exist in the General Line at that time.
Following the 2010 circular, the applicant opted for and was inducted into the Postmaster Cadre, while his junior, Smt. L. Lalitha, opted for the General Line. Paradoxically, the two cadres evolved in a manner contrary to original expectations: promotional opportunities advanced far more rapidly in the General Line than in the specialized Postmaster Cadre. Consequently, despite both officials having entered service as Postal Assistants on the same date (20.08.1979) with the applicant holding higher seniority, Smt. L. Lalitha advanced faster simply by remaining in the General Line.
Both officials were promoted to the LSG grade on 20.04.2007, drawing identical pay. The applicant joined Postmaster Grade-I on 25.04.2011 expecting structured upward mobility. However, Smt. L. Lalitha reached HSG-II (equivalent to Postmaster Grade-II) on 18.02.2012, whereas the applicant was promoted to Postmaster Grade-II only on 22.10.2014. Subsequently, Smt. L. Lalitha was promoted to HSG-I on 13.06.2015. Although their pay remained comparable up to 01.07.2018, Smt. L. Lalitha was granted HSG-I (NFG) with effect from 01.06.2019—just prior to the cadre merger—thereby drawing higher pay than her senior, the applicant.
Following the issuance of Directorate Guidelines on the merger of the Postmaster Cadre with the General Line Cadre vide Circular No. X-1-3/2019-SPN-II dated 26.07.2019 (Annexure–R6), the applicant was granted notional promotion to HSG-I with effect from 09.06.2015 (to restore parity with his junior Smt. L. Lalitha who was promoted on 13.06.2015), though actual charge was assumed on 01.06.2020. This underscores the core anomaly created by the 2010 bifurcation scheme.
It is significant that while the 2010 bifurcation was executed under statutory Recruitment Rules notified on 09.09.2010, the subsequent 2019 re-merger was undertaken to rectify the unforeseen administrative distortions and inequities caused by the bifurcation. The obvious object of the 2019 re-merger was to completely undo and nullify the unintended disadvantage suffered by senior officials who had opted for the Postmaster Cadre.
Indeed, a detailed examination of the re-merger circular dated 26.07.2019 demonstrates the Department's explicit intent to restore status quo ante and neutralize the financial and seniority disadvantages resulting from the 2010 bifurcation. Paragraph 2 of the 2019 circular specifically provides as follows:
“2.The officials of Postmaster Cadre shall be deemed to hold the corresponding grade in General Line Cadre from the date of appointment in respective grade of Postmaster Cadre. However, if an official was holding a post in general line cadre prior to appointment in Postmaster Cadre, the date of original appointment in general line cadre shall be taken as the date of appointment in respective grade of general line cadre and service rendered in Postmaster Cadre shall be deemed to be rendered in corresponding grade of general line cadre.”
Regarding inter se seniority upon merger, Paragraph 3(i)(b) governing Postmaster Grade-I and LSG officials stipulates as under:
“b)In case of officials holding the post of LSG at the time of filling up of the posts of Postmaster Grade I under initial constitutional provision, inter se seniority shall be the same inter se seniority in LSG that was prevailing prior to appointment in Postmaster Grade I.”
Similarly, Paragraph 3(ii)(c) provides as follows:
“c)In case of officials in HSG-II and Postmaster Grade-II, who were holding the post of LSG at the time of filling up of the posts of Postmaster Grade-I under initial constitution provision, inter se seniority in merged grade of HSG-II shall be the same as was in the LSG Grade. To achieve this, the notional date of appointment, of LSG official who opted for Postmaster Grade-I, in Postmaster Grade-II shall be the date from which the immediate junior in the LSG cadre (actual/notional) was appointed as HSG-II in the General line. This notional date shall be for the purpose of seniority only and shall have no effect on pay of the employee as explained hereinabove.”
Paragraph 6 of the circular further elucidates the principle of restoring parity in promotion and seniority:
“6.After deciding post-merger inter se seniority as outlined above promotion of an official may be considered wherever official junior in inter se seniority has been promoted provided all other conditions relating to such promotion are fulfilled. Such promotion shall be on notional basis only and shall have no effect on pay till the official actually assumes charge of the promoted post. ILLUSTRATION-7 (w.r.t Para 4-6) An official of PA cadre, who passed LDCE for Postmaster Grade I and subsequently promoted as Postmaster Grade II, may be deemed to hold the post of LSG w.e.f date of declaration of results of Postmaster Grade 1 and in HSG-II from the date of promotion as Postmaster Grade-II. By applying the provision Note 1 of recruitment rules of HSG-II notified as on 19.11.2013, if such an official can be considered for notional promotion to HSG-II from a date prior to his actual promotion as Postinaster Grade-II, the official will be given the benefit of notional promotion from such date. However, actual financial benefit would be accrued from the date he was holding the post of Postmaster Grade-II. An example of such case is given below:-
P Q 30.06.2011 – notional date of appointment in Postmaster Grade-I after qualifying the LDCE as per date of publication of results. 12.07.2011 – Actual date of appointment as LSG 12.05.2018 – Actual date of appointment as Postmaster Grade-II 12.05.2015 – Actual date of appointment as HSG-II After merger P will be senior to Q in the inter se seniority of LSG Cadre For P, 12.05.2015 shall be the notional date of appointment in HSG II, as that of Q, who is junior to P but was promoted on that day. However, P will not get any financial benefit for the period from 12.05.2015 to 11.05.2018 as he was not actually holding the post of Postmaster Grade II equivalent to that of HSG-II.
Analyzed from any angle, the single overriding objective of the 2019 re-merger circular was to eliminate the structural inequities generated by the 2010 cadre bifurcation. Senior officials who opted for the Postmaster Cadre found their career advancement stalled, while their juniors in the General Line secured rapid advancements, including the later-introduced HSG-I (NFG) scale. This resulted in an anomalous scenario where the applicant—admittedly senior to Smt. L. Lalitha both prior to bifurcation and post-merger—was drawn into a position of drawing lower pay and holding a lower grade than his junior.
The comparative service matrix set out in paragraph 7 of the respondents' reply statement clearly illustrates this anomaly:
| Applicant (Opted Postmaster Cadre) | Smt. Lalitha L (Opted General line cadre) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of birth | 23-07-1960 | 16-07-1960 | ||
| Pay in Rs. | Pay in Rs. | |||
| Date of Entry as Postal Assistant | 20-08-1979 | 260 | 20-08-1979 | 260 |
| TBOP | 25-08-1995 | 1480 | 24-08-1995 | 1480 |
| BCR | 01-01-2006 | 11580+4200 | 01-01-2006 | 11580+4200 |
| LSG | 20-04-2007 | 12060+4200 | 20-04-2007 | 12060+4200 |
| MACP III | 14-09-2009 | 14120+4600 | 08-09-2009 | 14120+4600 |
| PM Gr I | 25-04-2011 | 14960+4600 | NA | NA |
| HSG II | NA | NA | 18-02-2012 | 15270+4600 |
| PM Gr II | 22-10-2014 | 17130+4600 | NA | NA |
| HSG I | NA | NA | 13-06-2015 | 17790+4600 |
| Pay as on 01-07-2015 | 17790+4600 | 17790+4600 | ||
| VII CPC fixation | 01-01-2016 | 58600 | 01-01-2016 | 58600 |
| Pay as on 01-07-2018 | 64100 | 64100 | ||
| HSG I NFG | Not in General Line | 01-06-2019 | 66000 | |
| Pay as on 01-07-2019 | 66000 | 68000 | ||
| HSG I | 01-06-2020 | 68000 | NA | NA |
| Last pay drawn on Superannuation | 31-07-2020 on | 68000 | 31-07-2020 | 70000 |
Once it is recognized that the re-merger policy dated 26.07.2019 (Circular No. X-1-3/2019-SPN-II, Annexure–A1) was formulated to undo the unintended inequities of the 2010 bifurcation and grant promotion on par with juniors, the applicant's right to be considered for HSG-I (NFG) promotion crystallized upon the implementation of the merger (vide order dated 10.07.2019 No. 25-19/2018-PE-I and circular dated 26.07.2019). However, administrative delay in executing the policy hindered the timely grant of this benefit. Initially, the Postal Directorate issued a status quo order dated 24.06.2019 (Annexure–R16), which reads inter alia as follows:
“2.After introduction of new cadre HSG-I (NFG), eligible officials are being given financial up gradation in Level-8 of pay matrix by the Circles. However, in the meantime a proposal for merging Postmaster cadre with general line cadres has come into consideration. The committee, constituted to examine, he issues relating to the postmaster cadre vide its report dated 08.03.2019 has recommended to merge the cadre of Postmaster Grade-III cadre with the HSG-I cadre as the Postmaster cadre was carved out from the General line.
3.It may be seen that after merger of Postmaster cadre with the general line cadres, there may be instances where a HSG-I official promoted to the grade of HSG-I (NFG) is junior to a PM Grade-III official, who will be HSG-i after the merger. In order to avoid any such situation it would be appropriate to maintain 'status quo in the matter till further orders from the Directorate.”
It was only on 05.08.2020 that the Directorate issued Circular No. Q-25/2/2020-PE-I (Annexure–R17), temporarily redeploying 23 posts of HSG-I (NFG) to Karnataka Circle specifically to accommodate senior HSG-I officials (erstwhile PM Grade-III) whose juniors had already been promoted to HSG-I (NFG). Crucially, by the time this administrative redeployment occurred, the applicant had superannuated on 31.07.2020. Thus, while the applicant possessed an accrued entitlement to be considered for promotion on par with his junior from the date of cadre merger (10.07.2019 / 26.07.2019), he was deprived of actual consideration prior to retirement solely due to administrative delay and inertia in redeploying the requisite posts. This operational lag cannot be attributed to the applicant, who had opted for the Postmaster Cadre in good faith under the 2010 scheme.
The central legal question, therefore, is: once an accrued right to parity in promotion was created under the re-merger circular dated 26.07.2019 (Annexure–A1), did the applicant possess a legitimate expectation to be considered for such promotion within a reasonable timeframe prior to his superannuation? Can the Department plead its own administrative delay in transferring/redeploying sanctioned posts as a ground to defeat an employee's legitimate claim for parity with his junior?
We now proceed to evaluate each of the grounds and objections raised by the respondents to deny the applicant the benefit of promotion and stepping up of pay.
Regarding the first objection—that the applicant failed to satisfy the two-year residency period in the feeder cadre of HSG-I (PM Grade-III) because his actual appointment order to HSG-I was issued only on 01.06.2020—it is observed that the applicant was granted notional promotion to HSG-I with effect from 09.06.2015 (pre-dating his junior Smt. L. Lalitha’s promotion on 13.06.2015).
The applicant has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. K.B. Rajoria (Civil Appeal No. 2272/2000, decided on 28.03.2000, reported in AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 1819), wherein it was held that even if officers junior to the concerned officer have been promoted, the senior officer ought to be promoted immediately. If no vacancy is available, the junior-most person officiating in the higher grade must be reverted to accommodate the senior. Upon such promotion, pay is to be fixed under Fundamental Rules at the stage it would have reached had the senior been promoted from the date his immediate junior was promoted, though no arrears of pay for the past period would be admissible. The officer's seniority is to be determined according to the order in which his name is placed in the select list upon review by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). Further, where a minimum qualifying service is prescribed for promotion to the next higher grade, the period from which the junior officer was promoted shall be reckoned towards the qualifying service of the senior officer for determining eligibility.
Further, the applicant has drawn our attention to paragraphs 17 to 20 of the aforesaid judgment, which read as under:
“17.The distinction drawn by the High Court between the word service used in the eligibility criteria in this case and the words qualifying service in para 18.4.3 is specious. The Notes to the eligibility criteria as set out in the said schedule fortify this view. Notes 1 and 2 to the said schedule clarify the position with regard to the calculation of “two years regular service in the grade”.
“(1)The eligibility list for promotion shall be prepared with reference to the date of completion by the officers of the prescribed qualifying service in the respective grades/posts.
(2)If a junior with the requisite years of service is considered, the senior will also be considered notwithstanding the fact that he does not possess the requisite years of service.” (Emphasis added)
18.Note 1 leaves no room for doubt that the word service means qualifying service, and Note 2 makes it clear that in case of supersession actual service for the prescribed period is not required. This is in keeping with para 18.4.3 of the O.M. quoted earlier. As the notional date of promotion of Krishnamoorti was 22.2.95 he was eligible to be considered for the post of Director General in 1999.
19.In the context of this case, the High Court erred in equating the words regular service with actual experience relying on the decision in Union of India and others V. M. Bhaskar and Others 1996 (4) SCC 416. In that case the eligibility criteria expressly was of completion of 2 years experience in Grade II. The case is therefore entirely distinguishable. The notional promotion was given to Krishnamoorti to right the wrong that had been done to him by his supersession on 22nd February, 1995. If Krishnamoorti is denied the right to be considered for promotion to the post of Director General on the basis of such notional promotion, particularly when the relevant provisions so provide, it would result in perpetuating the wrong done to him. That is exactly what the High Court has done.
20.We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court, in so far as the finding regarding Krishnamoorti was concerned. There will be no order as to costs.”
Applying the ratio laid down above, upon the complete re-merger of the cadres—which legally restores the status quo ante as if no de-merger had ever occurred—the applicant becomes eligible to be considered for further promotion with reference to his junior who was already promoted, without insisting upon actual residency of two years. Under such circumstances, a senior officer acquires an immediate right to be considered for promotion. The plea of non-availability of vacancies is unsustainable in law; a senior officer possesses a superior right to occupy the higher post, requiring the junior-most officiating officer to yield, or, alternatively, necessitating the creation of a supernumerary post to accommodate the senior applicant.
Furthermore, a perusal of promotional orders pertaining to the HSG-I (NFG) grade reveals that promotions were granted in-situ by upgrading existing posts. This underscores that there is no functional distinction between the duties attached to the HSG-I and HSG-I (NFG) grades. Consequently, it was entirely feasible for the respondents to grant in-situ promotions immediately upon cadre merger to senior officials whose juniors had already secured promotion.
Our attention has been drawn to the promotion order dated 06.03.2019 in respect of Smt. L. Lalitha and others, which inter alia reads as under:
“2.As per the Directorate guidelines dated 27-05-2016 para (g), the new HSG-I (NFG) posts with grade pay of Rs.4800/- is only for those who are senior most and completed not less than a minimum service of 2 years in HSG-I. As per the Directorate guidelines dated 10-11-2017 para 4.2, in the initial stage and purely as a temporary measure, the officials can be given NFG on the basis of seniority wherever they are posted in HSG-I by upgrading the HSG-I post to NFG and simultaneously downgrading the NFG position to HSG-I elsewhere.”
A closer scrutiny of the aforesaid guidelines demonstrates that, as a temporary measure, the respondents granted HSG-I (NFG) on the basis of seniority wherever the officials were posted in HSG-I, by upgrading the HSG-I post to HSG-I (NFG) and simultaneously downgrading the NFG position elsewhere. In view of this administrative practice, the temporary redeployment order dated 05.08.2020 and the status-quo order dated 24.06.2019 are ill-conceived and delayed. It was fully open to the department to expeditiously upgrade the posts in-situ and grant promotion to eligible seniors who were left behind solely because they had earlier opted for the Postmasters Cadre.
This further establishes that where no functional difference exists between HSG-I and HSG-I (NFG), incorporating clauses that promotion would be subject to post availability or physical shifting is unconvincing. Consequently, the respondents' contention that no post was available in the circle during the applicant's period of service, thereby precluding his promotion, is legally unsustainable.
Further, the argument that because the applicant has retired, he cannot be granted higher scale benefits without having actually held the post and discharged higher responsibilities, rendering notional promotion unhelpful, is inequitable, unjust, and arbitrary—especially given that in-situ promotions were routinely granted. Substantively, there is no difference in the duties of HSG-I and HSG-I (NFG), as evidenced by the department's practice of effecting in-situ upgradations and downgradations. To that extent, the circular instructions dated 26.07.2019—insofar as they restrict post-merger promotions to a strictly notional basis without pay benefits until actual assumption of charge—cannot be applied rigidly where no functional difference exists. Since HSG-I and HSG-I (NFG) carry identical duties, actual physical assumption of charge was redundant, and in-situ promotional benefits ought to have flowed from the date the circular created the right.
Examining the true purport of the re-merger, the inescapable conclusion is that the department intended to completely neutralize the effect of the 2010 cadre bifurcation rules and the bifurcation circular dated 22.11.2010. Once the bifurcation is effectively erased, the respondents cannot treat the applicant and his junior, Smt. L. Lalitha, as belonging to distinct cadres. The defense that Smt. L. Lalitha was promoted while in the General Line Cadre whereas the applicant was in the Postmasters Cadre prior to re-merger—thereby disentitling him to stepping up of pay—is untenable. The explicit object of the re-merger order dated 10.07.2019 and circular dated 26.07.2019 was to obliterate all such distinctions and rectify senior-junior anomalies. The conduct of the respondents in attempting to maintain these artificial distinctions while enforcing re-merger amounts to approbating and reprobating simultaneously (allegans contraria non est audiendus). Having merged the Postmasters and General Line cadres to erase anomalies, the respondents are estopped from treating them as separate. Therefore, the applicant was clearly entitled to stepping up of pay with reference to his junior, with actual financial benefits flowing prospectively from the date of the re-merger circular, and notional benefit from the date his junior secured the promotion.
In view of these facts, and considering that the earlier order of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 526/2021 dated 09.08.2023 was not challenged and has attained finality, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant fulfils all eligibility criteria for promotion to HSG-I (NFG)—notionally from 01.06.2019 (the date his junior, Smt. L. Lalitha, was promoted) and with actual financial benefits from 10.07.2019 / 26.07.2019 (the date of the re-merger order/circular creating the right).
Furthermore, in view of the prevailing circulars and rules, the applicant is equally eligible for pay parity and the benefit of stepping up of pay under F.R. 22, the relevant provisions whereof are extracted below:
“STEPPING UP OF PAY
The conditions for Stepping up of pay as per FR 22(22) – (OM no. F2 (78)-E.III(A)/66 dated 4th February 1966) are
i.As per the Proviso of Note 10 below Rule 7 of CCS(RP) Rules 2016, in cases where a Government servant promoted to a higher post before the 1st day of January 2016 draws less pay in the revised pay structure than his junior who is promoted to the higher post on or after the 1st day of January 2016, the pay of the senior Government servant in the revised pay structure shall be stepped up to an amount equal to the pay as fixed for his junior in that higher post and such stepping up shall be done with effect from the date of promotion of the junior Government servant subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions:-
a. Both the junior and senior Government employees should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical in the same cadre.
b. The existing pay structure and the revised pay structure of the lower and higher posts in which they in which they are entitled to draw pay are identical
c. The Senior Government employees at the time of promotion should have been drawing equal or more pay than the junior
d. The anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of the provisions of FR 22 or any other rule or order regulating pay fixation on such promotion in the revised pay structure.”
Since the re-merger fully neutralizes the cadre bifurcation order and rules of 2010, the respondents' defense that the employees belonged to different cadres by virtue of their options must be rejected. Such arguments cannot stand in the present facts. The administrative experiment of cadre bifurcation having failed and culminated in full re-merger, justice demands that the applicant be granted pay parity with his junior, Smt. L. Lalitha. Such parity could easily have been extended even without formal physical relocation, by upgrading the HSG-I post held by the applicant.
Further, vide Order No. 25-19/2018-PE-I dated 10.07.2019, the respondents completely merged the two cadres. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:
“ In supersession of Postal Directorate Order No. 13-2/2010-PE-I dated 03.02.2010 & 25.11.2010, it has been decided with the approval of the Competent Authority to merge the Postmasters Cadre with the General Line Cadre with the following number of posts and designate them as per details given below: -
S. no. Existing Cadre (No. of Posts) Merged with Revised Strength After Merger 1 Postmaster Grade-III (495) Higher Selection Grade-I (HSG-I)/Level-7 HSG-I = 2618 (2123 + 495) 2 Postmaster Grade-II (511) Higher Selection Grade-I (HSG-II)/Level-6 HSG-II = 9090 (8579 + 511) 3 Postmaster Grade-I (2097) Lower Selection Grade (LSG)/Level - 5 LSG = 28591 (26494 + 2097) 2.As per the Directorate Order No. 13-2/2010-PE-I dated 03.02.2010, it was stipulated that 116 posts of PS Group 'B' will be deemed to have been designated as Senior Postmaster with effect from the dates they are filled up. However, the posts of Senior Postmaster in the Postmaster Cadre were not operated/filled up as per the provisions of the Department of Posts, Senior Postmaster (Group B Gazetted), Postinaster (Grade III and II - Group B non-Gazetted) and Postmaster (Grade 1 - Group C non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules. 2010. Hence, these posts of Senior Postmasters in the Postmaster Cadre did not come into existence. Therefore, 116 posts of PS Group 'B' intended to be operated as Senior Postmaster will continue to be in the sanctioned strength of PS Group 'B', i.c. 866.
3.Instructions for merger of identified Postmaster Grade POs with other POs shall be issued separately in due course of time.
4.The guidelines/instructions for preparation of inter-se seniority list of LSG including Postmaster Grade officials, HSG-II including Postmaste Grade-II officials and HSG-I including Postmaster Grade-III officials and posting of officials currently holding the posts of Postmasters Cadre shall be issued by Personnel Division separately.”
Thereafter, modalities for merger were issued vide Circular No. X-1-3/2019-SPN-II dated 26.07.2019 (Annexure A1/R6). From the submissions on record, it is undisputed that neither these orders nor the consequential seniority lists prepared pursuant thereto were challenged by anyone. There is a fundamental operational distinction between the order dated 10.07.2019 and the earlier bifurcation orders No. 13-2/2010-PE-I dated 03.02.2010 & 25.11.2010. While the 2010 rules offered employees an option to either join the Postmaster Cadre or remain in the General Line Cadre, the 2019 re-merger order was an unconditional merger requiring no exercise of option. It is not shown whether necessary recruitment rules were amended or consultations held; nonetheless, since the post-merger seniority list stands unchallenged, a crucial legal question arises for determination.
“If in the revised post-merger seniority list, an official is senior to another who was earlier in a different cadre (as in the present case where the applicant, Shri Javarayi Gowda, was initially senior to Smt. L. Lalitha but was bypassed when Smt. L. Lalitha gained promotion to HSG-I (NFG) w.e.f. 01.06.2019 while in the General Line Cadre), does the senior official, upon unconditional re-merger restoring his inter-se seniority, acquire a right to be promoted with reference to his junior from the date of merger?” This right is explicitly and unconditionally recognized in paragraph 6 of the operational order dated 26.07.2019, which provides:
“6.After deciding post-merger inter se seniority as outlined above promotion of an official may be considered wherever official junior in inter se seniority has been promoted provided all other conditions relating to such promotion are fulfilled. Such promotion shall be on notional basis only and shall have no effect on pay till the official actually assumes charge of the promoted post”
Consequently, the applicant acquired a vested right to be considered for promotion with reference to his junior upon the issuance of the re-merger order. In the absence of any challenge to the merger order, under the general principles governing senior-junior rights, if vacancies were unavailable as pleaded by the respondents, is not the junior obligated to vacate the post so that the senior may occupy it?
The defense raised by the respondents—that posts were unavailable, or that administrative modalities/status-quo orders delayed the redeployment or shifting of posts—is wholly unconvincing and legally unsustainable to deny promotional rights to the senior official.
Against this factual and legal backdrop, the first issue for our determination is whether the impugned order dated 22.05.2024 bearing No. STA/4-4/CAT/V (Annexure A14) complies with the directions of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 526/2021 dated 09.08.2023, which has attained finality.
Upon a careful appraisal of the record, we are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 22.05.2024 (Annexure A14) is in willful disregard of, and fails to comply with, the order of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 526/2021 dated 09.08.2023.
Having arrived at this conclusion, the primary question that arises for our consideration is:
“Where an unconditional merger of the Postmaster and General Line cadres is effected vide order dated 10.07.2019—which remains unchallenged and has culminated in a common seniority list wherein the applicant's seniority over Smt. L. Lalitha (his junior prior to the 2010 bifurcation) stands restored—does such unconditional merger create an indefeasible right in favor of the applicant for promotional seniority with reference to his junior?”
The facts are undisputed. The merger circulars explicitly contemplate that post-merger inter-se seniority governs promotional entitlement where a junior has been promoted earlier, subject to eligibility. Where the feeder post in HSG-I and the promotional post in HSG-I (NFG) carry no functional distinction—as demonstrated by the departmental records discussed above—it would be manifestly arbitrary and inequitable to leave the career progression of a senior employee to the unguided discretion of the respondents regarding availability or shifting of posts. Further, making service benefits contingent on whether an official retired before or after the temporary redeployment order dated 05.08.2020 (No. Q-25/2/2020-PE-I, Annexure R17) creates an artificial and impermissible classification. 55. Does not the creation of two distinct classes among similarly situated employees as on 10.07.2019—where those retiring after the redeployment order get the benefit while those retiring prior (like the applicant) are denied—violate the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution? 56. We hold that such action is arbitrary, perverse, and offensive to Article 14. Once the cadres were merged and rights stood created on 10.07.2019, all senior officials placed similarly were entitled to uniform relief from that date. It was the bounden duty of the respondents to execute consequential shifting, upgradation, or creation of supernumerary posts promptly to give effect to post-merger inter-se seniority, rather than creating artificial sub-classes. Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to promotional benefits with effect from 10.07.2019—notionally from the date his junior was promoted, and with actual financial benefits from 10.07.2019 (the date of cadre merger). In the applicant's case, superannuation presents no bar to granting actual benefits, since holding the post was purely formal given the absence of functional distinction between HSG-I and HSG-I (NFG).
Considering all these facts and the unique circumstances of the applicant, we pass the following order:
ORDER
Original Application is allowed. The impugned order No. STA/4-4/CAT/V dated 22.05.2024 (Annexure A14) is hereby set aside.
The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the applicant for promotion to the grade of HSG-I (NFG) notionally from the date his junior (Smt. L. Lalitha) was promoted to that grade, i.e., w.e.f. 01.06.2019, with consequential notional pay fixation.
The applicant shall be granted actual revision of emoluments and financial benefits with effect from 10.07.2019 (the date of issuance of the cadre merger order No. 25-19/2018-PE-I creating his right to pay parity with his junior, Smt. L. Lalitha), including higher pay, allowances, and consequential revision of pensionary benefits.
This order shall be implemented expeditiously, and in any event within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the arrears shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of default till actual payment.
All pending Miscellaneous Applications (MAs), if any, stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.