IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 2639 of 2009(S) ------------------------- OA.217/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-1 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, POSTAL ACCOUNTS WING, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-1 3. THE DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS (POSTAL) KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -1 4. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -33. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR RESPONDENT: --------------- C.MANMADHAN PILLAI,S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI SENIOR ACCOUNTANT O/O. THE DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS (POSTAL) KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. ADV. SRI.SHAFIK M.A. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.2639 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The applicant was a Junior Accountant working under the respondents. He was promoted as Senior Accountant on ad hoc basis, for the following spells: 1) 1.10.2002 to 18.2.2003 2) 19.2.2003 to 29.4.2003 3) 1.5.2003 to 28.10.2003 4) 29.10. 2003 to 31.10.2003. He was regularly promoted to that post on 1.11.2003. So, practically he was officiating in the higher post from 1.10.2002, though, there is an artificial break of one day on 30.4.2003. The dispute between the parties was whether the above spells of service rendered by the applicant in the promoted post could also be reckoned for grant of increment in that post. Since the said claim was not allowed, the O.A. 217/2006 was filed before the CAT by the applicant, who is the respondent in this writ petition. The W.P.(C) No.2639/2009 2 Original Application. was allowed by issuing the following directions. “6. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the advice of the aforesaid DOPT is squarely applicable in this case also. Accordingly we allow the first relief sought by the applicant and direct the respondents to examine his case and to grant him the annual increment for the period of officiation as Senior Accountant from 1.10.2002 to 31.10.2003 ignoring the period of artificial break and to refix his pay. In view of the statement of the respondents that the respondents are prepared to accept his option for fixation of pay even at this belated time, the second prayer of the applicant has become infructuous. Respondents shall consider the option to be given by the applicant, if not already given, in accordance with the rules. The applicant shall also be paid interest @ 9% to the arrears of pay and allowances arising out of the first relief from 1.11.2003 till the date of actual payment. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of maximum two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There is no order as to costs.” 2. The respondents in the Original Application have come up before this Court, by filing this writ petition, stating that there is a break of service on 30.4.2004. It is also submitted W.P.(C) No.2639/2009 3 that after every promotion, he was reverted and only thereafter he was promoted. So, on every occasion there was a break of service, it is submitted. The writ petitioners challenged the order of the C.A.T, mainly, relying on Exts.R1 to R3. It is pointed out that the ad hoc promotions were granted to the petitioner subject to the stipulation that the same will not be counted for any service benefits. But, the Tribunal relied on the advice given by the Department Of Personnel and Training (DOPT), concerning the reckoning of officiating service, which is quoted in para 2 of the impugned order. The said advice reads as follows: “............When the pay fixed in case of promotion is less than the pay drawn during the last spell of officiation against the same post, the pay drawn during the last spell of officiation can be allowed. The benefit of broken period of officiation is admissible only if on re-promotion the pay is fixed at the same stage as fixed during last officiation period(s). If fixed on higher stage the benefit of previous officiation period is not admissible.” W.P.(C) No.2639/2009 4 3. The Tribunal found that the above direction of the Department Of Personnel and Training will squarely apply to the facts of the case and directed re-consideration of the matter. We notice that the above direction of the DOPT is issued, notwithstanding, Annexures R1 to R3. Therefore, we find nothing wrong with the direction of the C.A.T to re-consider the claim of the respondent/applicant. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps