AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunil Thomas, Member J
The applicant herein was appointed as the Extra Departmental Branch Post Master of Potta on 7.7.1977. Since that Post Office was upgraded as Departmental Post Office, the applicant was retrenched and later given alternative appointment as Extra Departmental Sub Postmaster of Kadukutty on 8.2.1996. Thereafter, she was promoted as Post Woman, as per Annexure A1 memo dated 20.9.2005. She continued in that category, till her retirement from service on superannuation on 3.11.2015. After retirement, she claims to have known by a reply given under RTI Act, that she was appointed as Post Woman against a vacancy of the year 2003. On the strength of Annexure A3 reply, applicant has filed this OA claiming that she was liable to be appointed w.e.f. 2003, against the existed vacancy. She alleges that her appointment as Post Woman against the vacancy of 2000 was delayed solely on account of reasons attributable to the department and the applicant was not responsible for it.
According to the applicant, regular vacancies of Group-D posts were lying vacant from the year 2000 onwards. However, the Department did not take any steps to fill up the vacancies of Group-D on the ground that maximum age limit prescribed as 50 years was struck down in OA No. 1015 of 1995 and connected case. The Rules of recruitment were not finalized and hence no action was taken for appointment. According to the applicant, some of the identically situated applicants had filed OA No. 239 of 1998 and OA No. 449 of 1998. The application were allowed by this Tribunal directing the respondents therein to fill up the vacancies in Group-D in Kerala circle without waiting for the amendments in the Recruitment Rules treating that any ED agent who was below the age of 60 years was entitled to be considered for appointment in the absence of any prescribed age limit. It was held in those judgments that for the mere reason of delay or inaction on the part of the respondents in filling of the vacancies, if any ED agent like applicants therein have suffered any prejudice in the matter of length of service for eligibility of pension, respondents have to make their remedial steps in that behalf.
In the above circumstances the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking reliefs. The main relief sought in the Original Application was to declare that the applicant was entitled to get promoted to the cadre of Postman retrospectively w.e.f. 2003, and to grant her full service benefits from the date of retrospective notional promotion and also that she was also entitled to get the retiral benefits and pension determined on the basis of reckoning her qualifying service for pension from the date of entitlement for promotion. Another relief sought was to grant her pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and to disburse the arrears of pay and allowance and pension within a time frame.
The respondents filed a detailed statement denying the various allegations and contending that the decisions relied on by the applicant have no relevance to the facts of the case and were rendered on totally different grounds.
It is not in dispute that during the period of service the applicant had not raised any claim. It was only after the retirement in 2015 the applicant submitted the RTI application and obtained the reply. Thereafter, on that basis the OA was moved. All the decisions relied on by the applicants were rendered during 1998 to 2013, while the applicant was in service. After retirement she received all benefits as per new Pension Scheme. Thereafter, she has approached this Tribunal with claim of notional promotion, full service benefits from the date of retrospective notional promotion, retiral benefits and pension claimed from the date of retrospective notional promotion. Evidently the application is clearly barred by limitation.
The respondents contended that there was substantial delay in approaching this Tribunal and consequently, the decision in OA 889 of 2009 (Annexure R1) would apply. While dismissing the said OA it was observed that the applicant therein had approached the Tribunal seven years after issue of promotion orders and after accepting the benefits and continuing in service thereafter, he cannot keep alive the cause by submitting a representation after his retirement. In the present case also the applicant very well knew that she was seeking an appointment against the vacancies of the year 2003. Throughout her service she remained silent and never raised any objection. The OA was filed almost one year after her superannuation. Consequently, it has only to be held that the claim has become stale and no relief can be granted to the applicant.
Inspite of above finding, we are still inclined to consider the application on merits, in the interest of justice. According to the respondents the applicant appeared for the examination for recruitment to the cadre of Postman held on 22.5.2005 for the vacancies of the year 2003. It is also to be noted that the applicant had applied for the post of Postman notified on 21.2.2005, and held on 22.5.2005, for the vacancies of 2003, which was clearly mentioned in the notification itself. She was appointed as a Post Woman after observing all pre-appointment formalities. She continued as Post Woman till her retirement in 2015. Evidently, the applicant wrote the examination for the vacancy that has arisen in 2003 only in 2005. She was appointed immediately thereafter. It seems that during her entire tenure till her retirement on superannuation in 2015, she never raised any protest regarding her date of appointment. Since the applicant entered the Department only w.e.f. 23.9.2005, she was covered by the New Pension Scheme and hence applicant is not entitled to be covered by the old pension scheme.
The applicant has a specific case that there was unnecessary delay in conducting the examination and consequently, the applicant is entitled to get the benefit of the decision in Union of India v. Vipin Chandra Hiralal Shah [(1996) 6 SCC 721] wherein it was held that due to the failure on the part of the select committee to meet a particular year, it would not dispense with the requirement of preparing a select list for that year. According to the applicant, Hon’ble Supreme Court in that case had directed that the candidate was entitled to be appointed against a vacancy of that particular year.
According to the respondents, by Annexure R4 order of the DoP&T dated 16.1.2001, it was prescribed that all DR vacancies in Group-B, C and D should be filled up only after the clearance by the screening committee, headed by the Secretary of the concerned Department. According to the Department, though steps for collecting the data for filling up the posts of 2002 began in that year itself, screening committee’s approval was granted only in 2005. Since Rules provided for 3 months gap between notification and examination, it could be held only in 2005. Hence, the filling up of the vacancy got delayed only because of the delay in clearance by the above committee. Accordingly, the examination for the year 2003 was announced by the respondents on 21.2.2005. Applicant appeared for the examination of the year 2003 held on 22.5.2005. It was only thereafter she was appointed. The facts disclose that there was no laches on the part of the Department in not conducting the test earlier. In this background, we are not inclined to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that delay occurred at the instance of the Department and hence, the applicant was entitled for the relief on the strength of Vipin Chandra Hiralal Shah’s case (supra).
Though the applicant placed heavy reliance on the order in OAs Nos. 239 and 449 of 1998, they have no relevance to the facts of the present case. Those were cases wherein directions were issued to fill up vacancies in the cadre of Group-D without waiting for amendment to the Recruitment Rules regarding the age limit prescribed for Group-D recruitment. As correctly contended by the respondents, in the case at hand, there was no dispute regarding age limit in the recruitment to the cadre of Postman.
The main relief sought by the applicant was to include her into the statutory pension scheme by extending the benefits ordered in OA 620 of 2003. Though the Original Application is couched in the form of seeking a relief of reckoning her service w.e.f. 2003, virtually her attempt is to get herself included in the statutory pension scheme. It seems that OA 620 of 2003 was mainly on the ground that there was discrimination against the applicants in the above OA, who were wrongly placed under the New Pension Scheme. In that case the applicants had taken part in the examination held on 24.11.2002. The Gramin Dak Sevak officials who were qualified under the GDS merit quota were placed under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The applicants in the above OA were appointed as Postman only after 1.1.2005 due to the administrative delay in deciding the matter of carrying over the unfilled departmental quota vacancies to the GDS merit quota. In that peculiar context, to ensure that officials who have taken up the same examination held on 24.11.2002 were not treated differently and the delay having occurred due to administrative lapses, the Tribunal granted the reliefs. Evidently that decision cannot be extended to the case at hand which is a totally different context.
Having considered in the above background, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the original applicant. The Original Application fails and is dismissed. No costs.