1 D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4222/2007 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ram Lal & Anr. Date of Order :: 19-07-2007 HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI J.M. PANCHAL HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. V.K. Mathur, for the petitioners. PER HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL What is challenged in the instant petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is the order dated February 7, 2007 rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench in OA no.51/2005 by which the petitioners are directed to give benefit of higher pay scale under TBOP Scheme w.e.f. November 26, 2001 to the respondent, when he completed 16 years of regular service with all the consequential benefits of arrears thereon. The respondent was appointed as Reserved Trained Pool(RTP) Sorting Assistant w.e.f. September 26, 1983. He was engaged as RTP Postal Assistant by the SSPO Jodhpur w.e.f. June 7, 1985. On the said post he worked upto November 12, 1985 when he was given the regular appointment as Sorting Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.260-480 w.e.f. November 13, 1985. The respondent served continuously in Army 2 Postal Service w.e.f. November 26, 1985 to September 17, 1994 when he was discharged from APS. He was granted regular increments annually with all the benefits of military service. The respondent claimed that service on deputation to APS should be counted for the benefit of upgradation to higher scale under TBOP Scheme, and therefore he was entitled to upgradation in TBOP Scheme on completion of 16 years of regular continuous service. However, the claim advanced by the respondent was rejected by DPS, Jodhpur. Therefore, he moved Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench and prayed to direct the appellants to give benefit of higher pay scale under TBOP Scheme w.e.f. November 26, 2001 when he completed 16 years of regular service with all the consequential benefits of arrears thereon. The Tribunal has allowed the claim of the respondent giving rise to the instant petition. This Court has heard Mr. V.K. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners. The plea that counting of service of 16 years for the purpose of granting the benefit of TBOP Scheme should be from the date of regular service and not the period spent on deputation or ad hoc basis or temporary basis, cannot be accepted. In Union of India & Ors. Vs. M. Mathivanan (2006)6 SCC 57, Time Bound Promotion Scheme was promulgated by the Union of India. Para 1 of the said scheme provided that all officials belonging to 3 basic grades in Group 'C' and Group 'D' who had completed 16 years of service would be placed in the next higher grade. The employees claimed to be placed in the next higher grade. According to the employees, para 2 which required completion of 16 years of service for the purpose of promotion was not applicable and that they were entitled to regular promotion whereas the case of the Union of India and others was that para 2 which required completion of 16 years of regular service for the purpose of promotion was not applicable to the facts of the employees as they had not completed regular service of 16 years. While negativing the claim of the Union of India, the Supreme Court has held that an employee who has completed the eligibility condition of 16 years of service which included non- regular as well as regular service, would be entitled to benefit of the time-bound promotion scheme under para 1 and the same cannot be denied on the ground that he had not completed 16 years of regular service. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of law by the Supreme Court on the point, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal did not commit any error in directing the appellants to give benefit of higher pay scale under TBOP Scheme w.e.f. November 26, 2001 when he completed 16 years of regular service with all the consequential benefits of arrears thereon. 4 The net result of the above discussion is that this Court does not find any merit in the petition and the petition deserves to be dismissed summarily. For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is summarily dismissed. [BHANWAROO KHAN ],J. [J.M.PANCHAL],ACTG.CJ. Praveen