Union Of India & Ors vs M. Mathivanan

This appeal is directed against an order dated April 3, 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Madras Bench in O.A. No. 1094 of 2001 and confirmed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras on April 16, 2003 in Writ Petition No. 25452 of 2002. The relevant facts leading to the present appeal are that the respondent herein, Mr. M. Mathivanan was selected for recruitment to the cadre of Postal Assistant on December 28, 1981 and was appointed as Postal Assistant on daily wages basis. He underwent necessary training and was placed in Reserve Training Pool (RTP), Postal Assistant to be absorbed as regular Postal Assistant and was posted to work in the post offices in Cuddalore Postal Division. In August 1983, the respondent, volunteered for enrolment in Army Postal Services (APS). By an order dated August 19, 1983 his request was accepted and he was appointed as Postal Assistant, Cuddalore with effect from August 27, 1983. The appointment was made subject to the following conditions.

It was the case of the respondent that Time Bound Promotion Scheme was formulated by the authorities vide a Memorandum dated December 17, 1983. The instructions were sent to all the Heads of Circles (Postal). The scheme, inter alia, provided placing of officers in the 'next higher grade' who had completed sixteen years of service in Group 'C' and 'D'. The scheme came into effect from November 30, 1983. According to the respondent, he had shown his willingness vide letter dated January 29, 1988 for being governed by the said scheme. It is not in dispute that the respondent was appointed as Postal Assistant on 'regular' basis from July 18, 1989. He was transferred to Cuddalore Division and joined there on August 6, 1991. In 1999, the respondent made an application to the Superintendent of Post Office, Cuddalore Division for granting benefit of Time Bound Promotion Scheme as he had completed sixteen years considering the starting point of September 30, 1983. He also stated that he was in continuous service from 1983 and as such he was entitled to get the benefit from September 30, 1999. Unfortunately, however, his name was not included in the Time Bound Promotion Scheme. Finally, he was informed by a communication dated March 24, 2000 that his case for Time Bound Promotion would be considered only from 2007. His appeal against the said order also came to be dismissed by the Superintendent of Post Offices on October 18, 2000. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras by filing Original Application. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed his application holding that his services ought to have been considered from September 30, 1983 and since he had completed sixteen years in 1999, he was entitled to the benefit of Time Bound Promotion Scheme. Accordingly, the application was allowed. The Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed by the High Court of Madras which order has been challenged by the appellants in the present appeal.

On January 23, 2004, notice was issued on Special Leave Petition by this Court since there was delay of 155 days in approaching this Court. Meanwhile, however, interim stay was granted against the operation of the orders passed by the CAT and confirmed by the High Court. On September 12, 2005, after hearing the parties, delay was condoned, leave was granted, appeal was admitted, while interim relief was ordered to be continued and the appeal was ordered to be expedited for final hearing.

Since the respondent had completed sixteen years of service in 1999, he would be entitled to the benefit of paragraph 1 of Time Bound Promotion Scheme and the action of the authorities in not granting the said benefit was illegal and contrary to law. The Central Administrative Tribunal as well as the High Court were, therefore, right in setting aside the said action and by directing the authorities to extend the benefit of the Scheme to the respondent. We see no infirmity in the reasoning adopted and conclusion recorded by the CAT or by the High Court and find no substance in the appeal of the appellants.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with costs.