Ram Vyas Sharm vs Union Of India & Ors

Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-

“(i) To issue a suitable order or direction to set aside the order dated 19.05.2016 and further direct the respondents to grant the benefit of Fitter Grade I pay scale Rs. 5200-20200 GP 2800 and fix pension in G.P Rs. 2800 and pay consequential benefits and correct the pension as Fitter Grade I and pay the same.

(ii) To issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents to grant the benefit of III MACP and pay arrears.

(iii) To issue any other suitable order or direction as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.

(iv) To award cost of the petition in favour of the applicant”.

The brief facts of the case are that applicant was initially appointed as Khalasi on 01.07.1974 in the Railwa. He was granted temporary status in the year 1980. The applicant was promoted on the post of Fitter Grade II on 24.06.2013 in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 GP 2400 and further promotion was due after two years on the post of Fitter 1 on 24.06.2015 before retirement in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 GP 2800 but the same was not provided due to fault of respondents. The main ground for challenge is that applicant was promoted on 24.06.2013 and as per rule he would have been granted promotion on 24.06.2015 although applicant superannuated on 30.06.2015.

We have heard Shri B.N. Singh learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M.P Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

Submission of learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that applicant was promoted on 26.06.2013 on the post of Fitter Grade II in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 GP 2400 and as per extent rule after completion of two years the further promotion was due on the post of Fitter Grade I in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 GP 2800. He submits that applicant retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2015. The applicant has completed more than 30 years’ service but wrongly mentioned 29 years 7 months and 29 days, hence denied the benefits of 3rd MACP. He further submits that due to fault of Shakhadhikari for not sending the D&R, ACR and service to the Personnel Department in time, the promotion of the applicant could not be done, thus, applicant could not be suffered for no fault of him.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and argued that since applicant has assumed the charge of Fitter Grade II on 27.07.2013 and as per rule two years’ service was required for promotion to the post of Fitter Grade II and since applicant has retired from service on 30.06.2015, hence he has not completed two years’ service. Thus, grounds taken in OA are not sufficient to allow the Original Application.

We have gone through the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire pleadings.

From the perusal of impugned order dated 19.05.2016, it appears that due to delay in sending the D&R file, ACR and Service Book to the Personnel Department, applicant could not be given promotion in time and he has not been given promotion to the post of Fitter I. It is evident from the perusal of record that applicant assumed the charge of Fitter II on 27.07.2013 and as per rule two years was required for promotion to the post of Fitter Grade I. Since applicant retired from service on 30.06.2015, and two years period has not been completed on the post of Fitter Grade II, therefore, he was not entitled to be granted promotion to the post of Fitter Grade I. It is also evident from the perusal of record that applicant has completed only 29 years 7 months and 29 days and for grant of 3rd MACP, applicant must have completed 30 years of regular service, hence, respondents have rightly rejected the claim of applicant for grant of 3rd MACP. It is pertinent to mention here that applicant has already awarded two promotions during the service period and one MACP, therefore, on this count also he is also not entitled for 3rd MACP.

In view of the aforesaid observations, we do not find that the applicants are entitled for relief claimed in the OA. Hence, OA is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs.