.^ ^ (' ^l^/ DMsion Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FC.G.1 >(&6 W.P.SNo........:.............../2008 PETITIONERS: ..••" ^..'•"^\.^ ^"^^ ..^y ^?^" r^ ;&...••' ..^'r ^' RESPONDENTS/: VERSUS A. G. Khan S/o Late Shri A. L. Khan Agedabout SSyears Assistant Post Master Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 495001 The Director General Department ofPosts Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg NewDelhi PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Division Bench Coram: - Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, JJ. Petitioner Resoondent W. P. (St No.3168/2008 A. G. Khan Versus The Director General, Department of Posts, New Delhi. (Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Present: - Shri Mateen Siddiqui, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Assistant Solicitor General assisted by Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, counsel for respondent. ORDERfORALt (Passed on this 22nd day of February, 2010) The present petition arises out from the order dated 01-02-2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit sitting at Bilaspur (For short "the Tribunal') in Original Application No.177 of 2006, by which, original application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. (2) The brief facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was appointed as PA in Bastar Division on 10.2.1971. He was confirmed on 1.2.1974 and was placed in TBOP/BCR scale of pay with effect from 10-02-1987 and 16-02-1997 on completion of 16 and 26 years of service respectively. The grievance of the petitioner is that his juniors were placed in TBOP/BCR scale of pay on 12.12.1^4 and 1.10.1991 respectively, and therefore, he js also entitled to get these scales from the aforementioned dates in terms of the order dated 8.2.1996 and 24.9.1996, according to which grant of TBOP/BCR scales of pay has to be -^" from the corresponding dates of juniors. The petitioner made representations in this regard, but having received no reply. he approached the Tribunal for relief through O.A.No.39/1999. Pursuant to the order dated 13.05.1999 passed bythe Tribunal in Original Application No.39/1999, the respondent authorities were directed to dispose of the representation made by the petitioner for grant of TBOP/BCR scales of pay within a period of four months. The respondent authorities vide order dated 06.09.2005 rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of TBOP/BCR scales of pay with effect from 12.12.1984 and 01.10.1991 on the ground that he was an Accountant of 1981 and as per letter dated 17.5.2000 issued bythe respondent, benefit ofgetting TBOP/BCR scales from the dates the juniors became eligible, is no longer available. It was stated that the case of the petitioner has been considered in the light of circular dated 17.5.2000. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the Original Application No. 177 of 2006 on the ground that he was not an Accountant of 1981 and as such he was entitled for consideration. On a perusal ofthe impugned order, it appears that the Tribunal has considered the case of the petitioner on the basis of two circulars ignoring the fact that in the circular dated 8.2.1996, it was specifically mentioned that: "It has now been decided that all the ofRcials such as,UDCs in the Circle Office and SBCO, LSG (both 1/3rd), 2/2 P.0. and R.M.S. Accountants, whose seniority was adverselyaffected by implementation of BCR scheme placing their juniors in the nexl higher scale of pay will now be considered for next higher scate of pay from the date their immediate juniors became eligible for the next higher scate." (3) Tlie circular dated 8.2.1996 was modified by subsequent circular dated 5.8.97 (Annexure A-13) which reads as under: "It has now been decided that all the ofRcials, such as UDCs in Circle OflRce and SBCO. LSG (both 1/3ld and2/3rd) P.0. & R.M.S. Accounts will now be considered for next higher scate of pay from ^- the date their immediate juniors became eligible for the next higher scale." (4) From a perusal of the above stated circulars, it appears that the Tribunal has not considered whether the petitioner was entrtted to the benefrt under provision of circular dated 8.2.1996 and further by subsequent circular dated 5.8.1997. (5) Having regard to the fact situation of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 01.02.2008 passed by the Tribunal is liable to be and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to consider afresh the fact whether the petitioner is also entitled to the benefits under earlier drculars dated 8.2.1996 and 5.8.1997 issued by the respondent author'rty. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane