Welcome to the official website of All India Postal Employees Union Group 'C'- अखिल भारतीय डाक कर्मचारी संघ वर्ग 'सी' की आधिकारिक वेबसाइट में आपका स्वागत है
Loading...
.

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

BANGALORE CAT JUDGEMENT
The CAT Bangalore ordered that the Postman/Mailguard appointed prior to 1-1-2006 their Pay Scales also should be fixed as the Minimum entry Pay Scales not by multiple of 1.86CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS

JODHPUR HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT
The High Court Jodhpur upheld the order of Jodhpur CAT.On MACP CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
…..
D. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11336/2012

PETITIONERS:
1.      Union of India through the Secretary. Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts,  Dak Tar Bhawan, New Delhi.
2.      Chief Postmaster General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur-302007.
3.      Director, Post Master General, Western Region, Jodhpur.
4.      Superintendent of Post Offices, Churu Division, Churu

VERSUS

RESPONDENT
Bhanwar Lal Regar S/o Shri Ghasi Ram Regar Resident of Regar Basti Ward No. 38. Tehsi Churu District Churu (Official Address Working of SPM Bagla School Road Post office at Churu in Postal Department.

D. B. Civil Writ Petition Under Article 226 & 227 of the constitution of India.

AND

In the Matter of Order dated 22.05.2012 passed by the Central administrative tribunal Jodhpur bench Jodhpur in original application No. 382/2011 Bhanwar Lal Regar V/S Union of India & ORS. Whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the original application filed by the respondent/applicant quashing the order under challenge in the original application.

PRESENT

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Mr. A. K. Rajvanshy, Assistant Solicitor General of India for union of India
Dr. P. S. Bhati
Mr. S. P. Singh             for the respondents.
Ms. Shanno Rizvi

BY THE COURT:
This batch of writ petitions is preferred to question correctness of the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in different original applications, however, looking to the similar nature of dispute, all the cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

Briefly stated, facts necessary to be noticed for adjudication of these petition for writ are that the respondent original applicants entered in services of the respondents being appointed as mail Guard/Extra Departmental Agents/Gram Dak Sewaks, while serving on the post aforesaid they faced process of selection for appointment to the post of sorting Assistants/Postmen. On being selected, appointments were accorded to them by the competent authorities, after completing necessary tenure of service time bound one time financial upgradation was allowed to them as per the assured career progression scheme. The assured career progression scheme was modified on 1.9.2008 and as per that the financial upgradation was made admissible whenever a person completes ten years continuous service in the same grade pay, the second upgradation may also be given after completion of ten years of regular service from the date of first financial upgradation. Similarly, the third upgradation is required to be given on completion of ten years regular service from the date of second financial upgradation. The respondents by treating the date of appointment on the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant as the date of initial appointment allowed first and second financial upgradation. Subsequent thereto the second financial upgrdation awarded as per modified assured career progression scheme was ordered to be withdrawn by treating appointment to the post of Postman/Sorting Assistant a promotion. Being aggrieved by the same the respondent original applicants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur and the Tribunal accepted the applications by arriving at the conclusion that the appointment to the post of Postman/Sorting Assistant was not a promotion but direct recruitment through limited competition.

In these petitions for writ the argument advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners is that the respondent applicants were recruited and appointed as Group-D employees and thereafter by way of promotion appointments were given to them as Postmen/Sorting Assistants. The date of appointment as such was the date on which they were appointed as mail Guard/Extra Departmental Agents/Gram Dak Sewaks and thereafter promotion was accorded to them on the next higher post, as such their term of stagnation in one grade pay is required to be determined accordingly. No other contention except the above is addressed before us.

Having considered the argument advanced we do not find any merit with the same. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on asking again and again failed to point out any provision for promotion to the post of postman/Sorting Assistant. On the other hand, from perusal of the orders of appointment to the post of Postal Assistant. Sorting Assistant, it is apparent that the respondent original applicants faced an examination. May that be a limited competitive examination i.e.  nothing but direct recruitment. Their joining as Postal Assistants was not at all in the nature of promotion. hence their services for the grant of benefits under modified assured career progression has to be counted only from the date they were appointed as Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants. The services rendered by them on earlier post prior to their appointment as Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistants are absolutely inconsequential for the purpose of grant of modified assured career progression. At the cost of repetition it shall be appropriate to mention that the petitioners failed to point out any provision for appointment to the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant by way of promotion and to point out any order of appointment making appointment of the original applicants on the post concerned by way of promotion.

The writ petition, thus, are having no merit hence dismissed. The orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in respective original applications stand affirmed.

                        Sd/-                                                                                          Sd/-

(Jaishree Thakur), J.                                                                (Govind Mathur). J

No comments: