The Union of India vs Bijay Kumar Srivastava

Heard counsel for the petitioner Union of India as well

as the private respondent.

The order of the Tribunal is under challenge. The order

is dated 22.09.2014 passed in O.A. No. 476 of 2010. The order of the

Tribunal is to pay to the private respondent the benefit of third ACP,

which is under MACP Scheme, at par with his co-employees. This

part of the direction is under challenge.

The facts in short are that a punishment of recovery was

ordered against the employee vide order dated 09.04.2007. A sum of

Rs.1,10,000.00 was to be recovered at the rate of Rs.3,500.00 per

month in 31 equal installments. In the meantime, during the period,

when the so-called punishment was subsisting, a consideration was

made to grant benefit of MACP to other co-employees and the

private respondent demanded parity, which was resisted by the

Postal Department on the ground that such a right to demand and

beget promotion cannot be accepted during the period of subsistence

of the order of punishment.

Learned Assistant Solicitor General representing the

Postal Department submits that the order of recovery was there. The

recovery was to be effected in 31 equal installments and, therefore,

the period of punishment was to subsist for 31 months. There was no

occasion to consider any grant of benefit of promotion during this

period.

From the Circulars, which have been considered by the

Tribunal and even reproduced, it is evident that imposition of minor

punishment is not supposed to act as a bar for consideration of

promotion of an employee. Such a promotion cannot be granted

during the period the punishment was subsisting.

The Court does not find any difficulty in the provision.

Consideration is not barred. However, the benefit of such

consideration can only accrue after the period of the punishment

expired.

In the present case, the period of punishment is not 31

months by virtue of fixing of equal installments. The punishment

was recovery. No sooner the employee paid back the recovered

amount, the period of punishment would be over and his right to

beget the benefit of promotion will kick in.

The Tribunal to that extent had not committed any error

by giving such a direction, but it is made clear that the benefit can

only accrue to the private respondent from the next date of the date

on which he paid back the entire amount which was ordered to be

recovered from him

The writ application otherwise stands dismissed with

above clarification.