AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.—The Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 07.01.2010 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 563 of 2008.
The first Respondent / applicant, who was working as LSG Assistant Postmaster, has filed the Original Application before the Tribunal seeking
promotion to the next higher post, viz., Lower Selection Grade (LSG) on the basis of seniority in Circle Gradation List.
The case of the first Respondent is that he has entered the Department of Posts as Clerk in the Pudukottai Division on 01.02.1971. Later, he
joined in the Karaikudi Division on 18.9.1975 under Rule 38 of P&T Manual Vol. IV. Hence, according to him, his seniority and promotion to the
post of LSG is protected under Sub-Clause 3 of P & T Manual Vol. IV. It is stated that though the scale of pay of TBOP and LSG supervisory
was identical, the TBOP officials were allowed to continue to work as LSG though several vacancies were available to the cadre of LSG. It is
further stated that he has been granted TBOP as well as BCR benefits long back. It is the further case of the first Respondent that for promotion to
the LSG cadre, circle seniority was maintained till 12.12.1985 and thereafter, till 29.5.2006, Divisional seniority was maintained. The cadre of
LSG was divisionalized as per Letter No. 6-19/82-SPB II (Pt) dated 06.6.1990 clarifying that the officials transferred from one circle to another
alone would be affected but not the ones who had been transferred under the Rule from one Division to another Division within the circle.
It is the further case of the first Respondent that the second Petitioner, who is junior to him, was promoted to the post of LSG notionally in the
year 2004and hence, he made a representation dated 26.6.2007 to the authorities to consider his case also for promotion on par with the second
Petitioner, but, there was no reply. On the other hand, he was promoted to the post of LSG with effect from 20.8.2007 only. Hence, he
approached the Tribunal with O.A. No. 563 of 2008.
The substance of the claim of the first Respondent is that the decision of the first Petitioner to promote him on a later date and allowing
promotion to the officials who are juniors to him much earlier by ignoring his circle seniority is arbitrary, unilateral and is in violation of Recruitment
Rules of LSG and Sub-rule 3 of Rule 38 of P & T Manual and subsequent clarification issued by the Director General of Posts and therefore, the
first Respondent has sought for the relief of direction to the Petitioners to promote him to LSG, taking his circle seniority into consideration from
the date on which his junior C. Muppidathi had been promoted to LSG with all consequential benefits to enable him to get his due promotions to
HSG II and HSGI as he was due to retire on 31.12.2010.
The Tribunal, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials placed on record, allowed the Original
Application following the earlier decision of this Court in W.P. No. 6877 of 2009 wherein the order of the Tribunal in similar matter in O.A. No.
528 of 2007 that promotion to LSG grade has to be based on the circle seniority only, was confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ
petition has been filed.
Learned Standing Counsel representing the authorities submitted that the first Respondent, as per Rule 38, having agreed to abide by the
condition that he would rank junior to all the officials of the new division, could be considered for promotion only on the basis of divisional seniority
and further since LSG cadre was divisionalized in the year 1985, promotion could be made only on the basis of divisional gradation list and C.
Muppidathi, who was senior to the first Respondent in the divisional gradation list, was given notional promotion to LSG cadre and the first
Respondent was promoted to LSG on his turn as per the divisional seniority list and therefore, the promotions given were as per the LSG Rules
prevailing at the time of promotion and the LSG cadre was made as a circle cadre again after 30.05.2006. She further submitted that as against the
order of this Court passed in W.P. No. 6877 of 2009, which was relied on by the Tribunal, appeal has been filed before the Hon''ble Supreme
Court in SLP No. 7176 of 2010 and sought for interference of this Court.
The core question to be decided in this writ petition is whether the promotion of the first Respondent to LSG cadre will be on the basis of
divisional seniority or circle seniority.
In this connection, under sub Rule 3 of Rule38 of P & T Manual, it is mentioned that if the old and new unit form parts of a wider unit for the
purpose of promotion to a higher cadre, the transferee (whether by mutual exchange or otherwise) will retain his original seniority in the gradation
list of the wider unit. For example, a Post Office Clerk transferred from Mehsana Division to Kaira Division in the same circle will not lose his
seniority in the circle gradation list for promotion to the Lower Selection Grade. Suffice it for us to point out whatever circular that has been issued,
cannot, in the eye of law, override a Rule in the considered opinion of this Court.
Even in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, nowhere it is mentioned that whether the first Respondent is entitled to get promotion
prior to13.12.1985 as per the circle seniority list cadre and, in turn, they have considered the circle seniority basis with effect from 18.05.1986
viz., from which date, LSG was declared as circle cadre.
By adverting to the letter of the Director General of Posts in No. 6-19/82-SPB dated 13.12.1985introducing the divisionalisation of the LSG
cadre, it is to be pointed out that the said letter in the first paragraph goes to the effect that ""the Lower Selection Grade in the Department of Posts
is a circle cadre at present and in this cadre, posts are filled by promotion of officials in the cadre of Postal/Sorting Assistant"". It is not out of place
to point out that the first Respondent was transferred from Pudukottai to Karaikudi in the year 1975 prior to the divisionalisation which took place
in the year 1985. Even a perusal of the clarification letter dated06.06.1990 especially clause III, issued by the Director General of Posts in regard
to preparation of gradation lists after divisionalisation of LSG cadre, enjoins that since for the purpose of promotion and the TBOP Scheme what is
to be counted for total length of service whether in one division or in different divisions, the condition that the transferees under Rule 38 will rank
junior most in the new division will have effect only to the extent that seniority of such an official in the divisional LSG will be below the officials of
that division promoted during the year in question and continuing further, the letter also points out that since prior to divisionalisation of LSG cadre,
transfer of PAs from one division to another division did not adversely affect the seniority of the transferred officials for the purpose of promotion
to the LSG. It is also clarified that Clause (iii) will be applicable only in the case of transferees from one circle to another and as such it is crystal
clear that the seniority of transferees from one circle to another will be affected and not those who are transferred within the circle and resultantly,
the seniority of the first Respondent, who is senior to Muppidathi in the circle seniority will not be affected. Interestingly, the
Petitioners/Respondents have not adverted to anything about the specific point in their reply statement and this is not a favourable circumstance in
their favour, in our considered opinion.
Secondly, though it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the appeal preferred as against the order of this Court in similar matter in
W.P. No. 6877 of 2009 is pending before the Supreme Court, no stay has been granted.
On an overall assessment of the facts and circumstances in an integral manner and in view of the detailed, quantitative and qualitative discussion
mentioned supra and looking at from any angle, we do not find any illegality or patent irregularity in the order of the second Respondent/Tribunal
passed in O.A. No. 563 of 2008 dated 07.01.2010 and resultantly the writ petition fails.
In fine, for the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.